It's over. The 15,000 delegates from 193 countries plus 10,000 hangers have packed their bags and left the Cancun luxury hotels where they were saving the Earth for two weeks. The purveyors of bad tequila (for technophobic young demonstrators) and fine wines (for delegates) are counting their money, and hotel employees are busily cleaning up the mess in preparation for the influx of Christmas tourists.
In the spirit of Copenhagen, civilization has again dodged the bullet of mass hysteria. A new dark age of deindustrialization has been evaded, and another nail has been driven into the coffin of the Kyoto accord. There was never any real possibility that major developing nations such as China and Brazil would line up to commit economic suicide, and agree to hobble their burgeoning industries by firmly limiting carbon dioxide emissions, while less developed countries would be free to do whatever they wish.
To justify the two-week waste of time and money, agreement was reached to establish a Green Climate Fund, projected to rise to $100 billion annually by 2020, for countries threatened by altered weather patterns. It's unclear who will contribute to the fund, how it will be administered or who (other than Third World tyrants) would be the beneficiaries. It looks like a classic shell game in which affluent countries will pledge funds but actually make no significant contributions. If money really does end up in the pot, what a carnival of graft, corruption and international conflict over the spoils that will be!
The Cancun meetings, from their inception, had less to do with saving the Earth than with the redistribution of wealth from industrialized countries to the Third World, on a much larger scale than has ever been accomplished through conventional foreign aid. Third World delegates were exemplified by Bolivian President Eva Morales who, for years, has been campaigning for international compensation for poor countries that agree to protect their own forests. The final declaration from Cancun indicates that this campaign was successful but, again, honeyed words don't necessarily produce hard cash. Ironically, Bolivia refused to sign the final agreement because it didn't contain mandatory (and crippling) emission caps for wealthy countries.
Delegates, living large in one of the world's most luxurious and ecologically unfriendly venues, seriously considered weakening the industrialized world with an international system of energy rationing.
Two weeks before the conference opened, Ottmar Edenhoffer, a senior official in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said, "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore . . ."
Morales went a step further by stating flatly that the principal objective of the conference would be to "save the planet from capitalism."
Mother nature clearly has a sense of humour. With Great Britain and all of northern Europe staggering under the earliest, coldest and snowiest winter weather since the 18th century, the delegates were probably looking forward to warming their bones. Oh, frabjous irony. Daily low temperatures in Cancun were between 10° and 12°C ever since the conference opened and included six consecutive days with all-time record lows. Of course, true climate catastrophists will be quick to point out that sustained record cold over half the planet is only "weather." Conversely, if you've been paying attention for the past 15 years, you know that, to warmists, a two-day heat wave anywhere on Earth is "climate" and proof positive that the atmosphere is warming and evil humanity is to blame.
The delegates seem to have agreed that any future increase in global temperature should be not more than 2°C. How the Earth's thermostat will be adjusted is unclear. However, since there's been no measurable warming for 12 years, staying within the two degree window seems like a safe bet.
Meanwhile, back in Sydney, N.S., Stephen Harper pledged that Canada will uphold any binding international agreement to reduce CO2 emissions -- a safe assurance given the prudent intransigence of China, Japan, Russia and the U.S.
Whatever one may think of Harper's politics or his performance as prime minister, his intellect isn't open to question.
I don't believe for a moment that he loses sleep fretting about a coming climate catastrophe. Just as medieval princes secured their power by pledging fealty to Rome, modern heads of state, of whatever political stripe, sometimes find it convenient to bow to the apostles of human induced climate change. Harper agreed to respect a deal that obviously wasn't going to happen, and Canada is off the hook.
Next year, there will be another giant gathering producing another useless communique. Hopefully, with scientific and public opposition to computer-assisted astrology growing ever stronger, that will be the end of the global warming mania.
Lee Morrison was a Reform party MP from 1997 to 2000, when he retired from active politics. He lives in Calgary.
And why would I believe some lame opinion by a former Reform party politician that lives in a City made rich by oil?
I don't see a shread of evidence or fact. The claims of redistribution have been argued before. Yes, that's part of what these conferences are about, trying to keep developing nations from contributing to pollution and the Greenhouse effect so that the industialized nations efforts in curtailing such things aren't in vain. Somehow you think that the industrialized nations want to redistribute their money to poor nations for some other reason? That it's some other type of conspiracy to get your money but not for themselves for poor countries? The claims of follow the money are funny at times when you look at who has the most money and the most to lose if the science is correct. Not that there's not people that will take advantage and exploit any situation they can.
And why would I believe some lame opinion by a former Reform party politician that lives in a City made rich by oil?
I don't see a shread of evidence or fact. The claims of redistribution have been argued before. Yes, that's part of what these conferences are about, trying to keep developing nations from contributing to pollution and the Greenhouse effect so that the industialized nations efforts in curtailing such things aren't in vain. Somehow you think that the industrialized nations want to redistribute their money to poor nations for some other reason? That it's some other type of conspiracy to get your money but not for themselves for poor countries? The claims of follow the money are funny at times when you look at who has the most money and the most to lose if the science is correct. Not that there's not people that will take advantage and exploit any situation they can.
Gee, newf, I don't know, maybe it's THE PEOPLE'S OWN DAMN WORDS? Did you even read the freaking article? Two of the warmists, one who is with the IPCC, ADMIT that it's not about climate and it IS about redistribution of wealth. How much goddamn evidence do you NEED? Geez, man.
Gee, newf, I don't know, maybe it's THE PEOPLE'S OWN DAMN WORDS? Did you even read the freaking article? Two of the warmists, one who is with the IPCC, ADMIT that it's not about climate and it IS about redistribution of wealth. How much goddamn evidence do you NEED? Geez, man.
Geez man, we've been through it before, maybe you should clue in to what these conferences talk about. They are not arguing about whether it's happening or not it's about what countries have to do deal with and try and prevent making things worse.
Again what's new here? Same cherry picked "news" in another article. Really, it's getting old. What evidence?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-17-2010).]
I don't like what these two individuals are quoted as saying:
quote
Two weeks before the conference opened, Ottmar Edenhoffer, a senior official in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said, "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore . . ."
Morales went a step further by stating flatly that the principal objective of the conference would be to "save the planet from capitalism."
But I think the reality is as newf described:
quote
I don't see a shread of evidence or fact. The claims of redistribution have been argued before. Yes, that's part of what these conferences are about, trying to keep developing nations from contributing to pollution and the Greenhouse effect so that the industialized nations efforts in curtailing such things aren't in vain.
That's it's about socialist redistribution of wealth, and not climate. Damn, man, do I have to explain *everything* to you?
If I wanted someone to explain it to me I'd turn to an expert not some JAG on the internet. You go ahead and believe whatever those you listen to tell you to believe. baa baa
Spin it whichever way you want man, I'll trust the science rather than your constant opinion pieces and conspiracy theories.
I don't like what these two individuals are quoted as saying:
But I think the reality is as newf described:
[QUOTE]I don't see a shread of evidence or fact. The claims of redistribution have been argued before. Yes, that's part of what these conferences are about, trying to keep developing nations from contributing to pollution and the Greenhouse effect so that the industialized nations efforts in curtailing such things aren't in vain.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, we were through all of that before at some point and it seemed like more editted quotes without context if I remember.
This is the same quote rehashed in another opinion piece.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-17-2010).]
If I wanted someone to explain it to me I'd turn to an expert not some JAG on the internet. You go ahead and believe whatever those you listen to tell you to believe. baa baa
Spin it whichever way you want man, I'll trust the science rather than your constant opinion pieces and conspiracy theories.
No, newf. Not "baa baa", not spin. I presented you the words of an IPCC official, and you dismissed them. That doesn't help your credibility.
YOU are believing what you want to believe, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Newf you are as you describe, a true "JAG" on the internet. You really are not in touch with reality and frankly you waste the time of people who try to give you good information.
Newf you are as you describe, a true "JAG" on the internet. You really are not in touch with reality and frankly you waste the time of people who try to give you good information.
Arn
Amen. Thanks, neighbor, couldn't have said it better.
Newf wouldn't know what the truth is, if it were starering him right in the face. Oh, wait... it is! His mind is made up and no one or anything is going to change it.
What evidence is there to prove than man is responsible? There is no 100% undeniable proof that man is the cause - it is all conjecture. Global warming, climate change or whatever the heck you want to call it is the latest bandwagon that the 'hippies' are on that have grabbed the attention of the politicians and some big names down in the US to help push through their agenda. Sure the environment ‘may be’ changing, but there is no hard evidence to prove that man is responsible, they are simply putting the blame on us as it is easier to try and explain rather than doing some really hard research and science.
Take Al Gore for example, he pushes it because he owns a company that allows people for pay for their guilt feelings for leaving behind their 'carbon footprint' - you think Mr. Gore would be doing this out of his concern for the environment? No it's took make money, if it wasn't about making money than this company would be setup as a nonprofit organization (the same goes for the David Suzuki Foundation). Even the Hollywood types that like to spout off about it are far from giving up their huge homes and big cars (sure some own a Prius, but that is for status only, I have never seen one of them actively driving it around town (nor has anyone else that I am aware of).
I work in a research environment where part of the work that is done here has to do with ‘climate change’ and I can tell you that all the PHD’s do NOT agree with it, but they know where the money is to keep them employed. Sure they are working on steps to help reduce man’s impact (and we should), but they are in it for the money (as commented by several, “if you want grant money all you have to do is somehow tie your research to ‘global warming’ or the ‘oil and gas industry’ and the governments will throw all kinds of money your way”.
Newf you are as you describe, a true "JAG" on the internet. You really are not in touch with reality and frankly you waste the time of people who try to give you good information.
Arn
Yeah, again I'll trust the science not the experts on here who claim to know more. Like I said man, submit your brilliant theories and "evidence", you'll be a hero. Or maybe YOU are just another JAG that likes to buck the science and believe in anything but.
Waste your time? Not in touch with reality? Don't respond. It's very simple. I don't claim to be an expert, never have but some of you guys keep claiming you know the "truth" and when challenged with facts you either don't believe it (fair enough you're entitled to your opinion or to ignore) or claim it's made up or falsified. Go ahead and believe whatever it is you like but this is a internet forum and if you don't expect someone with a differing opinion to challenge your claims I suggest you write a blog.
What evidence is there to prove than man is responsible? There is no 100% undeniable proof that man is the cause - it is all conjecture. Global warming, climate change or whatever the heck you want to call it is the latest bandwagon that the 'hippies' are on that have grabbed the attention of the politicians and some big names down in the US to help push through their agenda. Sure the environment ‘may be’ changing, but there is no hard evidence to prove that man is responsible, they are simply putting the blame on us as it is easier to try and explain rather than doing some really hard research and science.
Take Al Gore for example, he pushes it because he owns a company that allows people for pay for their guilt feelings for leaving behind their 'carbon footprint' - you think Mr. Gore would be doing this out of his concern for the environment? No it's took make money, if it wasn't about making money than this company would be setup as a nonprofit organization (the same goes for the David Suzuki Foundation). Even the Hollywood types that like to spout off about it are far from giving up their huge homes and big cars (sure some own a Prius, but that is for status only, I have never seen one of them actively driving it around town (nor has anyone else that I am aware of).
I work in a research environment where part of the work that is done here has to do with ‘climate change’ and I can tell you that all the PHD’s do NOT agree with it, but they know where the money is to keep them employed. Sure they are working on steps to help reduce man’s impact (and we should), but they are in it for the money (as commented by several, “if you want grant money all you have to do is somehow tie your research to ‘global warming’ or the ‘oil and gas industry’ and the governments will throw all kinds of money your way”.
Yeah, again I'll trust the science not the experts on here who claim to know more. Like I said man, submit your brilliant theories and "evidence", you'll be a hero. Or maybe YOU are just another JAG that likes to buck the science and believe in anything but.
Waste your time? Not in touch with reality? Don't respond. It's very simple. I don't claim to be an expert, never have but some of you guys keep claiming you know the "truth" and when challenged with facts you either don't believe it (fair enough you're entitled to your opinion or to ignore) or claim it's made up or falsified. Go ahead and believe whatever it is you like but this is a internet forum and if you don't expect someone with a differing opinion to challenge your claims I suggest you write a blog.
Newf, you are behaving like a troll. It doesn't matter if someone quotes the IPCC or gives any reputable reference, you simply diss it and discount the veracity of the statement. As far as I am concerned you are a trouble maker, not a valid or constructive contributor to the thread. Fierobear has posted valid information from a reliable source that happens to agree with information that has been posted numerous times but still you go on contradicting. You are arguing for arguement's sake and it is not appreciated. FYI
Newf, you are behaving like a troll. It doesn't matter if someone quotes the IPCC or gives any reputable reference, you simply diss it and discount the veracity of the statement. As far as I am concerned you are a trouble maker, not a valid or constructive contributor to the thread. Fierobear has posted valid information from a reliable source that happens to agree with information that has been posted numerous times but still you go on contradicting. You are arguing for arguement's sake and it is not appreciated. FYI
Arn
Whatever you say. You can continue to call me out in threads if you like I think that shows who the troll is. I've stated so many times that I'm not an expert and will trust the science not you or some other internet surfers who copy and paste from blogs and come up with their own psuedo science.
I'll challenge you yet again to submit theses theories that you have come up with to a University or trusted Scientific body.
I'm not arguing for arguement sake at all in fact it's usually a direct rebuttle of what someone else claims to know as fact, or often it's when my name is dirrectly mentioned (I think you can clearly see who is looking for an arguement in those cases) Using your contention everyone that agrees with Climate Change being influenced by man and doesn't agree with your particular belief system is wrong and a troublemaker for stating their opinion. Open your mind you might learn something usefull.
DON'T BE AFRAID OF DIFFERING OPINIONS WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT IT'S AN INTERNET FORUM THAT'S OPEN FOR DIFFERING OPINION AND DISCUSSION. FREE TO ALL MY FRIEND.
YOU WANT TO ONLY HAVE PEOPLE TO BELIEVE ONLY WHAT YOU DO?? START A BLOG. OTHERWISE I SUGGEST YOU IGNORE MY POSTS INSTEAD OF CRYING FOUL BECAUSE I DON'T BUY INTO YOUR PARTICULAR THEORIES.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-17-2010).]
Haha. yeah that sucks, Glad you are all safe though. We're having unusual weather also but fortunately it's been unseasonably mild and no snow to speak of as of yet. I guess I'm allowed to continue to buy into the Science
Yep, only took the wife 21 hours to get home. Go ahead and enjoy the Science, I suspect you'll soon be getting the other end soon enough.
First of all I notice the articles you linked are seperated by 11 years, so that might be one indication to why they are different. As we've already been through the great thing about science is they tend to constantly be learning and studying added new data as it becomes available that help them better predict things.
Secondly your misrepresented the titles. The one about warm winters is giving an explanation to why the winters were warmer 11 years ago and even says it "offers no predictions on what temperatures future winters will bring". While the one about cooler winters is actually titled "Global Warming COULD Cool Down Northern Temperatures in Winter" and says "Petoukhov's study is not about tomorrow's weather forecast but about longtime probabilities of climate change. "I suppose nobody knows," he says, "how harsh this year's winter will be."
Thirdly the first study seem didn't take into account the artic ice melting to the degree that it has in the last few years which was something that the cooler seemed to focus on.
I'm sure there's probably more but let me know if you have anything else to throw at the wall.
No, newf. You missed the point. They predicted warming, it didn't happen. When it got cold, they CHANGED THE STORY. THAT'S the point.
EVERYTHING is caused by human-source CO2, so they're NEVER wrong. Anyone with half a functioning brain will see that and say "I'm being scammed."
Oh, I see, I must of missed the part where it was the same group doing both studies or claiming what you are asserting. Who are the "They" you are talking about exactly? There is nothing in those articles that refudiates Climate Change and the effects of Man-made CO2 even though you might like there to be. The same trends are there, rising global temps and extreme events. The fact that weather has changed in specific locations due to variables like artic ice differences and resultant winds are consistant with both articles.
You're may be being scammed alright, if only you would realize by whom.
The authors of the first papers names were given and I'm sure we can find emails if we try, would you like to ask them about it?
Gavin A. Schmidt, associate research scientist at Columbia's Center for Climate Systems Research; Ron L. Miller, associate research scientist in the Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics at Columbia, and Lionel Pandolfo, assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of British Columbia.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-18-2010).]
Oh, I see, I must of missed the part where it was the same group doing both studies or claiming what you are asserting. Who are the "They" you are talking about exactly? There is nothing in those articles that refudiates Climate Change and the effects of Man-made CO2 even though you might like there to be. The same trends are there, rising global temps and extreme events. The fact that weather has changed in specific locations due to variables like artic ice differences and resultant winds are consistant with both articles.
You're may be being scammed alright, if only you would realize by whom.
I'm sorry, newf. I really owe you an apology. I mistook you for someone intelligent and objective enough to see the truth when it is presented to you. My mistake, one I won't repeat in the future.
I'm sorry, newf. I really owe you an apology. I mistook you for someone intelligent and objective enough to see the truth when it is presented to you. My mistake, one I won't repeat in the future.
You go on believing whatever you like.
Oh, here is a contact for you to write the author of the first study. Make sure you CC me.
Contact Us Center for Climate Systems Research Columbia University Armstrong Hall 2880 Broadway New York, NY 10025 ccsr_feedback@columbia.edu
Or if you'd rather the author of the second article you referenced:
Contact:
Earth System Analysis
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Telegrafenberg A62 P.O. Box 60 12 03 D-14412 Potsdam Germany
Ph.: +49-(0)331-288-2593 Fax: +49-(0)331-288-2620
Email: vladimir.petoukhov (at) pik-potsdam.de
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-18-2010).]
All new regulatory schemes like carbon cap and trade have problems like this that have to be worked out over time.
But this "scam" report has no bearing one way or the other on the science that is involved.
By the way, I thought that I should take this opportunity to report that the California Air Resources Board has just approved an extensive state-wide carbon cap and trade scheme:
Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.
Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.
Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".
Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change - into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.
Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.
"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.
Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.
The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".
Not any more, it seems.
==============================================
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Tell that to all the people stranded in Europe because of the cold and snowfall - in DIRECT conflict with what warmist scientists said in 2000.
All new regulatory schemes like carbon cap and trade have problems like this that have to be worked out over time.
But this "scam" report has no bearing one way or the other on the science that is involved.
By the way, I thought that I should take this opportunity to report that the California Air Resources Board has just approved an extensive state-wide carbon cap and trade scheme:
Originally posted by fierobear: The big question [about cap and trade] is...will it FAIL like the Chicago Climate Exchange, or how the European scheme is failing.
I don't think that is the "big" question, by any means.
I think the "big" question is "How high are atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide levels going to rise?"--regardless of whatever regulatory systems are/are not in place.
quote
IntercontinentalExchange is closing the Chicago operations just months after paying nearly $600 million for Climate Exchange. But the company will continue to operate the Climate Exchange's markets for greenhouse gases in Europe, said spokeswoman Melanie Shale.
Originally posted by newf: Wow, a quote from 1 scientist 10 years ago. You've exposed the conspiracy Sherlock.
Holy CRAP you missed the point. 10 years ago, they - including a scientist from CRU, which the warmists consider one of the most reliable sources, predicted that snowfall would soon be a thing of the past. Now, 10 years later, and Europe is getting record cold and snowfall - in DIRECT conflict with what your beloved scientists said would happen, which means they are doing an EPIC FAIL
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-20-2010).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: I think the "big" question is "How high are atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide levels going to rise?"--regardless of whatever regulatory systems are (or are not) in place.
CO2 keeps going up, and temperatures aren't. The disasters they've been predicting aren't happening. What more do you need?
Wow, a quote from 1 scientist 10 years ago. You've exposed the conspiracy Sherlock.
Holy CRAP you missed the point. 10 years ago, they - including a scientist from CRU, which the warmists consider one of the most reliable sources, that snowfall would soon be a thing of the past. Now, 10 years later, and Europe is getting record cold and snowfall - in DIRECT conflict with what your beloved scientists said would happen, which means they are doing an EPIC FAIL
Never saw anything about this scientist speaking for all scientists, plus as I keep trying to get through to you, good science and most people realize with a complex system like the climate of the earth they are constantly learning how to refine and add data to make more and more accurate predictions.
Do you somehow think that one quote discounts everything? I agree epic fail for anyone to try and say exactly what will happen in the future, they can only go on the data and best science of the time. Almost as silly as denying that anything is happening...or wait.... what arguement are you currently going with?
How are you making out on your emails?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-20-2010).]
Never saw anything about this scientist speaking for all scientists, plus as I keep trying to get through to you, good science and most people realize with a complex system like the climate of the earth they are constantly learning how to refine and add data to make more and more accurate predictions.
It doesn't matter. You keep repeating how you believe "the science". So, how many scientists do you need to convince you? OH! That's right, you only believe it if there are "2000 scientists" or some big number.
quote
Do you domehow think that one quote discounts everything?
Well, yeah, if the one disproves 2000, then yes.
quote
I agree epic fail for anyone to try and say exactly what will happen in the future, they can only go on the data and best science of the time.
The science of the time, which was SPECTACTUARLY WRONG. Another point you completely miss.
quote
How are you making out on your emails?
To whom? Warmist scientists whose livelihood depends on grant money to prove warming? You've gotta be KIDDING.
Last 10 years have been the warmest on record and continue the trend?
Based on what, NASA GISS? What a f***ing joke.
Trivia question: how many weather stations are there to report on temperature from the Arctic (including the Arctic ocean, Canada, Russia, Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic)?
Originally posted by fierobear: CO2 keeps going up, and temperatures aren't. The disasters they've been predicting aren't happening. What more do you need?
Canada 
