I highly recommend this video be watched by everyone:
Intro: 0 - 2:10 Preface: 2:11 - 3:00 The biggest uncertainty: 3:01 - 4:55 CO2: China & India vs USA: 4:56 - 17:15 "This is global warming": 17:15 - 19:25 "13 years with no warming": 19:25 - 20:43 Why the BEST study is the best: 20:44 - 21:55 Warming in the USA: 21:56 - 22:55 Alaska is melting?: 22:56 - 24:25 "What bothers me is no body in the climate science business will show you the evidence that makes their statements look a little suspicious. …They fear that the public is too stupid to recognize that because it disagrees it doesn't mean it's right." Isn't global warming "clear and incontrovertible"? (Sea level rise, Surface Temps, Arctic, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Wildfires): 24:25 - 29:50 "Climategate": 29:51 - 34:38 IPCC's past faults and 'the next' IPCC report: 34:39 - 35:22 Energy (Oil, Natural Gas, Coal & Batteries): 35:25 - 39:36 Energy conservation: 39:37 - 40:00 Nuclear: 40:01 - 40:35 Closing thoughts: 40:36 - 42:25 Questions: 42:26 - 52:14
Originally posted by partfiero: You seam to be quite knowledgeable on this subject. But if this is 100% true, what is the fix?
How exactly would you go about fixing it?
In a nutshell, we've got to get off fossil fuels and make huge investments in nuclear infrastructure. That's a top down approach. Government passing laws and handing down orders to the subjects below them type of thing. I'm a personal champion of the bottom up approach for a number of reasons. While the following gets 'shrugged off' as 'feel good' stuff I believe it's important: making changes in our personal lives to make us individually independent. When the individual consumes less and sustains themselves for the most part it scales up. When individuals are self sustained, their community becomes self sustained, then state becomes self sustained, then nation becomes self sustained. Forcing people to comply through the barrel of a gun or the ball of a pen is not the best approach. The collective has to be empowered. Really a combination of both approaches is necessary to meet in the middle.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: , since around 1998
If you pick any different starting point do you get the same results? Nope. So please explain to the people you're misleading why 1998 is meaningful when the results are not reproducible with any other year.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: There *was* an upward trend. Notice it is downward at the same time temperatures have been flat. Not a coincidence.
Where's your "missing cooling" then? If PDO is in control why aren't temperatures falling rapidly right now? You're inconstant when you say PDO is responsible temperatures rising but PDO isn't making them fall.
The 2000's are warmer than the 1990's. The 1990's were warmer than the 1980's. Where are temperatures flat? Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Notice the net temperature rise since 1880 is only about 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and that is about 1 degree C.
So what is all this about 3 degrees C ?
In fact, since the Global Warming alarmists started up in the 90's, the rise in average temperature is only around 1/2 a Fahrenheit degree.
Flyinfieros likes to say I don't back up what I am saying with data, so what about his data?
You misunderstood what I said again Arn.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: When I say there are no starving and drowning polar bears like what was foisted on the public, it is because
says there are 20,000 - 25,000 polar bears globally and they are not an endangered species.
As masospaghetti already pointed out, the link you provided has an entire section dedicated to the threat climate change poses to polar bears.
Your source backs up your claims about their population numbers. Your source does not back up your logic that climate change is not threatening polar bears.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: When I say there is no increase in hurricanes, you can go to
I'm well aware that hurricanes have actually started to trend downward. Hurricanes are not the only weather the planet has.
While the USA is not the only place on the planet that has weather, the climate extremes in the USA are increasing. Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: When I say that no islands have been inundated like Al Gore threatened,
The University of Aukland and studied the island nations of Micronesia, and find they are not in danger at all. (sorry, you have to look it up)
I looked for your study and I cannot find it. Please find it and cite it.
While searching for the study I did find something that disagrees with your statements. The people of Microneisa DO feel threatened by climate change:
quote
FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA
A RESOLUTION Expressing the gratitude of the Federated States of Micronesia to Mr. Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States of America, for his continuing efforts to heighten international awareness of the emerging crisis due to global warming and climate change.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: While the first 2 weeks of July was faster decline than normal, it is still within the standard variation.
Nope.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: No matter what level of ranting and raving, name calling and insults, the facts simply are that the forecasted disasters predicted in the early 90s have just not happened.
Where's your source for this claim? Who forecasted disasters?
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The Global Average Temperature is not racing out of control.
Can you spot the industrial revolution in this graph? Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Yes, the climate has been evolving warmer since the last ice age. Did mankind cause it? nope.
With a look at the last 20,000 years the rate of warming is completely unprecedented.
Yup. Not only spatial density but also spatial distribution, as well as corresponding temporal density and distribution. There is also the issue of non-uniform quality of the measurements. The graphs are smoothed thematic contour maps of what is almost certainly somewhat "lumpy" underlying data. None of this necessarily reduces the credibility of the time series animation; they are just things that I'd want to know before making important decisions based on it.
As Richard Feynman cautioned: As an ethical scientist it's just as important to carefully examine data that agrees with your conclusion than data which does not; it's just as important to publish all the data, not just that which supports the conclusion.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-02-2013).]
The progression of the "skeptical" argument: Skeptic: We need more data to prove we are warming. Scientist: Here's more data that proves we are warming. Skeptic: Oh crap. I mean... Yeah but those scientists are frauds, urban heat biases results, and station quality is poor. Scientist: We studied data from different organizations, who all used different methods, and employed different scientists- the data matches. The concerns you have are overblown hype. Skeptic: There's got to be some error, it needs to be verified through peer review. Scientist: It's been publicly available for anyone to download and verify themselves since 2011. There are no errors. Skeptic: But it's not peer reviewed or published in a journal. Scientist: We have passed peer review and the papers have been published. The publisher has a good and growing reputation. Skeptic: Yeah but it's not in a journal that I picked! The data is invalid. All of it.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Still referencing BEST, which couldn't get published in ANY climate journal?
Yawn...
You're still harping about the publisher because you're incapable of discrediting the actual science of the BEST study. You're trying to fight a scientific battle with political strategies.
Where's a published temperature study that supports your position? Oh yeah, that doesn't exist.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Still quoting Marcott, who is quoted as saying his 20th century temperature spike wasn't "robust" (that means it isn't valid)?
You keep repeating the above as if it makes any sense at all. You don't understand the purpose of the Marcott paper.
I didn't quote Marcott for the 20th century spike. Everything prior to the spike is very robust. We have a heavily verified instrument record that verifies the spike. The instrument record used that clearly shows a spike, HadCRU, you have cited several times as evidence.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Unbelievable.
Round and round we go. Of course you'd ignore all the questions presented to you in order to focus on what you can fabricate controversy about. But don't worry buddy, I'll be here till my last breath to set the record straight.
Flyin whoever you are, you really are a piece of work.
So you deny there are about 26000 polar bears and that the population has been increasing the past 20 years? You deny the Arctic research folks and the Canadian government do not consider the species endangered?
You deny your exaggerated graphs are talking about 1 to 1.5 degree of movement over the better part of a century?
You deny that the IPCC and Al Gore forecasted global catastrophes as they sought out government money?
You haven't read the posts going back to 2008 on this thread that show the lies and uncover the truth?
I have to say you can argue well, but so can a sociopath.
That "study" is full of speculation Newf. As you well know, the CBC is a huge leftist front for people like the multimillionaire David Suzuki and other lefties.
The relationship of the polar bear to the Grizzly and Alaskan Brown is well known. We don't see any evidence to support the "study" or else there would be pictures of mottled coated bears in the north, or mixed breeds.
The facts are still there. The polar bear population has increased world wide to about 26,000. The breed is not in distress and is not endangered. Don't forget that they count on open water in the summer to feed on seals and fatten up for the winter.
They can swim for miles and stay under water for extended periods too.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: In a nutshell, we've got to get off fossil fuels and make huge investments in nuclear infrastructure.
oh....and because nuclear power is oh SOOO much better for the environment over fossil fuels? Is that the best they can come up with? Nothing like leaving the nuclear cleanup to our kids kids....
If it is so good why is it that many countries in Europe are moving away from it? Never mind the problems with Germany's Great Solar Energy Bubble. It has popped for good, and what’s left behind is a whopping 21 billion euros in destroyed capital: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/...chnung-12225036.html
"Investment stars Solarworld and Q-Cells have destroyed capital to the tune of double-digit billions of euros. In December 2007 the East German Solar Valley cell and module manufacturer Q-Cells was considered to be an aspiring candidate for the first league stock market. Nothing came of that. Instead the company declared itself insolvent in 2012 and was bought up by a Korean company. Private investors practically lost everything.”
or, how about this (old) news: http://www.spiegel.de/inter...vation-a-888094.html "The German government is carrying out a rapid expansion of renewable energies like wind, solar and biogas, yet the process is taking a toll on nature conservation. The issue is causing a rift in the environmental movement, pitting "green energy" supporters against ecologists." But, hey I "get it" they are doing good to the environment by clear cutting and whole wack of trees.
*IF* we are going to clean up the planet, we need REAL solutions, not these lame a$$ one that simply sweep it under the carpet and let someone else deal with any problems in the future.
yep, the goberments all over the planet are doing real good trying to save the planet...
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 08-04-2013).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: oh....and because nuclear power is oh SOOO much better for the environment over fossil fuels? Is that the best they can come up with? Nothing like leaving the nuclear cleanup to our kids kids....
If it is so good why is it that many countries in Europe are moving away from it?
Nuclear power is the only thing we have that even comes close. Nuclear waste is mostly an issue because the world still operates pressurized water reactors designed in the 1960's and 1970's, which only consumes a small portion of the nuclear fuel. There are plenty of new reactor technologies that can reprocess fuel and/or produce orders of magnitude less waste than current reactors. The only reason they aren't in use now is the political climate and public ignorance.
France reprocesses their own fuel. Why don't we? Hint: it's not because the technology doesn't exist.
Not to mention that nuclear is by FAR the safest form of power generation, despite the horror stories. Per TWh of energy generated, nuclear energy has about 1/4 the fatality rate of wind (the 2nd best) and a staggering 240x fewer deaths than coal generation.
Also, you use Europe as "proof" that nuclear isn't a good option.
1) France produces about 75% of their power from nuclear, the highest in the world. They also have the lowest energy costs in Europe. Coincidence? 2) Germany is the only country that is abandoning nuclear. Neighboring countries, such as the Czech Republic, are building new reactors so they don't have to rely on Germany's fluctuating power source generated by their wind turbines and solar plants.
More on 2): Germany made the pledge to shutter all nuclear plants by 2022 and make up the difference using renewables. This has mostly turned out to be a disaster. Electricity rates were $0.34 (adjusted to USD) per kwh in Germany, November 2012. France, by comparison, charged $0.19. Germany is having major power distribution problems getting their wind energy (mostly generated in the north, along the water) to the industrial centers in the south.
Current technology doesn't exist to economically store large amounts of energy either, so you still need baseload power in addition to peaking power. Renewables aren't consistent and don't work well as baseload power. Nuclear, fossil, and hydro plants are the only plants that can supply baseload power. So, if this is true, how is Germany making up their loss of baseload power by installing renewables?
They are building new fossil plants. Coal plants that burn lignite, actually (the worst kind). Coal power there rose about 50% of total energy in 2013. Source
That link has a pretty good overview of the problems in Germany right now.
All energy sources have some drawbacks. Nuclear isn't perfect, but it's the only reasonable shot the civilized world has for affordable low-carbon power.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 08-05-2013).]
The IPCC wants mitigate the disaster of false forecasting. Different people have different opinions.
The science will tell you that CO2 increasing is a result of warming, not a cause.
Sure it is increasing, however it is less than 1% of the atmosphere. The real influences are NO2 and water vapour, with water vapour being the biggest part of the equation.
If it turns out that the climate scientists are right (the 95%) then all of this opposition that has been presented here is unconsionable. Not criminal because no law has been broken, but if the misinformation causes catastrophic delay in dealing with the problem then there is a very real moral problem. I can only assume that the anti AGW posters here actually believe everything they post and truly do not believe anything that counteracts their beliefs. I say that because I can't believe they would actually post such damaging information if they didn't believe everything that they post. I've read everything posted and weighed it against science. Yes there are uncertainties in the science, but the preponderance of available evidence indicate that there is a very real very serious problem. I will say that I am not 100% convinced on all of the tactics presented to deal with the threat, but deal with it we must. We absolutely must keep an open mind and deal with it in the best possible way.
If it turns out that the climate scientists are right (the 95%) then all of this opposition that has been presented here is unconsionable. Not criminal because no law has been broken, but if the misinformation causes catastrophic delay in dealing with the problem then there is a very real moral problem. I can only assume that the anti AGW posters here actually believe everything they post and truly do not believe anything that counteracts their beliefs. I say that because I can't believe they would actually post such damaging information if they didn't believe everything that they post. I've read everything posted and weighed it against science. Yes there are uncertainties in the science, but the preponderance of available evidence indicate that there is a very real very serious problem. I will say that I am not 100% convinced on all of the tactics presented to deal with the threat, but deal with it we must. We absolutely must keep an open mind and deal with it in the best possible way.
You are correct. I have seen enough good information and enough bad information to have come to the conclusion that we DO NOT have a catastrophic CO2 problem.
If it turns out that the climate scientists are right (the 95%) then all of this opposition that has been presented here is unconsionable. Not criminal because no law has been broken, but if the misinformation causes catastrophic delay in dealing with the problem then there is a very real moral problem. I can only assume that the anti AGW posters here actually believe everything they post and truly do not believe anything that counteracts their beliefs. I say that because I can't believe they would actually post such damaging information if they didn't believe everything that they post. I've read everything posted and weighed it against science. Yes there are uncertainties in the science, but the preponderance of available evidence indicate that there is a very real very serious problem. I will say that I am not 100% convinced on all of the tactics presented to deal with the threat, but deal with it we must. We absolutely must keep an open mind and deal with it in the best possible way.
The forces to address the world's evolving climate are way outside our control. You have the sun, you have the rotational tilt, and the ocean currents that result from the spinning and tilt. Since the last ice age, we have had melt at the North Pole more than the South Pole. Part of the disparity is the tilt. The South Pole has been building ice while the North Pole depletes.
Of course most of the ice in the Arctic is in the ocean and is below sea level. When we see an ice berg, for instance, we see only 10% of it. 90% is below the water line. Because ice has air molecules in it, the ice expands and floats. So when it melts it actually shrinks in volume. This is the reason we have no problem with oceans rising, other than the natural rise of them over the past thousand years or so since the ice age.
All this nonsense about CO2 causing all this is pure science fiction.
We do have to make plans for the changing weather patterns alright, but politicians are so busy figuring out tax schemes to capitalize on people's fears that they spend no time at all planning for the future. This is the real tragedy in all this.
Informed policies come from understanding the science.
That's confusing, what was just posted (immediately above) about ocean levels and sea ice. It misses the point. (See "Melting icebergs add to sea level rise--but only a few centimeters.") The water that causes significant increases in sea levels during global warming does not come from melting sea ice. It comes from the melting of glaciers and ice sheets on land, starting with Antarctica and Greenland, which represent most of that potential.
Or to be more accurate:
quote
Two main factors contributed to observed sea level rise. The first is thermal expansion: as ocean water warms, it expands. The second is from the contribution of land-based ice due to increased melting. The major store of water on land is found in glaciers and ice sheets.
The anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O) and its relevance to global warming may not get as much press in the lay media as CO2, but it has not escaped notice by scientists. All of the literate discussions of global warming and possible mitigation strategies (as contained in the IPCC reports and elsewhere) include N2O. Some of the mitigation strategies for CO2, such as reducing the use of fossil fuels, would also reduce the amount of N2O emissions.
As far as water vapor and anthropogenic global warming, it's mostly a moot point. Although water vapor is another byproduct of fossil fuels combustion, its baseline in the lower atmosphere is naturally many times more abundant than the other GHGs (greenhouse gases), and so water vapor emissions from human activities (chiefly, use of fossil fuels) is far less significant in terms of affecting global climate. All the more so, because water vapor cycles rapidly in and out of the atmosphere as rain and other forms of precipitation, unlike the much longer residence times for atmospheric CO2, N2O and other man-made GHGs. There's a brief and easy-to-read discussion of it here:
quote
Although it is widely accepted that water vapor amplifies the [warming] effects of CO2, methane, and other GHGs, it does not appear likely that anthropogenic additions of water vapor to the atmosphere have a direct effect. The small scale of water vapor emissions from thermoelectric power plants [and by extension, other fossil fuel-based processes] and the rapid natural response of the water cycle to changes in water vapor concentration both indicate that this is probably not an area of concern.
There has been some concern in the IPCC reports and other publications about the climate being affected by water vapor emissions in the upper atmosphere from high flying aircraft (especially passenger jets) and even from spacecraft:
quote
As one option for future aviation, we consider the addition of a fleet of high-speed civil transport (HSCT, supersonic) aircraft replacing part of the subsonic air traffic under scenario Fa1. In this example, HSCT aircraft are assumed to begin operation in the year 2015, to grow linearly to a maximum of 1,000 aircraft by the year 2040, and to use new technologies to maintain very low emissions of 5 g NO2 per kg fuel. By the year 2050, this combined fleet (scenario Fa1H) would add 0.08 W m-2 on top of the 0.19 W m-2 radiative forcing from scenario F1a. This additional radiative forcing combines direct HSCT effects with the reduction in equivalent subsonic air traffic: +0.006 W m-2 from additional CO2, +0.10 W m-2 from increased stratospheric H2O, -0.012 W m-2 from ozone and methane changes resulting from NOx emissions, and -0.011 W m-2 from reduced contrails. In total, the best value for HSCT RF is about 5 times larger than that of displaced subsonic aircraft, although the recognized uncertainty includes a factor as small as zero. The RFs from changes in stratospheric H2O and O3 are difficult to simulate in models and remain highly uncertain.
Although the task of detecting climate change from all human activities is already difficult, detecting the aircraft-specific contribution to global climate change is not possible now and presents a serious challenge for the next century. Aircraft radiative forcing, like forcing from other individual sectors, is a small fraction of the whole anthropogenic climate forcing: about 4% today and by the year 2050 reaching 3-7% for F-type scenarios and 10-15% for E-type scenarios.
Unanalyzed observations such as "95 percent of warming is caused by water vapor" and "CO2 is less than one percent of the atmosphere" are obfuscatory, and do not advance the discussion in any informative way. That's just pulling arbitrary numbers out of a hat for rhetorical effect--not science.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-06-2013).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Come on now. You are comparing water vapour from jets and combustion as the principle culprit? What about CLOUDS that are formed from the evaporation from the 2/3's fo planet that is open water?
You really can't give up on the notion that mankind is responsible for the weather?
I have read enough to know that water in the lower atmosphere and water in the upper atmosphere have to be considered separately.
There is always a lot of water cycling between the surface and the lower atmosphere. The fraction of this water that is anthropogenic--water vapor produced as a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion--is negligible, in comparison to the natural hydrologic cycle. Mostly, it's water that evaporates from the surface of oceans, lakes and rivers and has a brief residence in the lower atmosphere before it returns to the surface as rain or other precipitation.
Of course, it is a fact that water vapor in the lower atmosphere is far and away the most significant GHG (greenhouse gas) in terms of its warming effect. But it's a moot point as far as AGW (anthropogenic global warming), since human activities have no direct effect on the water vapor content of the lower atmosphere. It's the indirect effect of the anthropogenic GHGs (starting with CO2) on water vapor in the lower atmosphere that is at the heart of the AGW mechanism. As anthropogenic GHGs accumulate in the lower atmosphere, the radiative heat-trapping effect produces a marginal increase of heat energy across the surface of land masses and oceans and in the lower atmosphere. This marginal warming effect from anthropogenic GHGs increases the water vapor content of the lower atmosphere.
The hydrologic cycle in the upper atmosphere is very different. There is no natural process that moves significant amounts of water and/or water vapor from the surface and lower atmosphere into the upper atmosphere. But there is an unnatural process--an anthropogenic process--the water vapor emitted from the engines of passenger jets and other high flying aircraft. Since the water baseline of the upper atmosphere from natural processes is very small, this anthropogenic contribution (from aircraft) could be relatively significant, in terms of a global climate impact. Not currently a main driver of global warming, but a certain small percentage of the total anthropogenic warming effect. But what happens under the IPCC scenarios if the density of air traffic in the upper atmosphere increases in the years moving towards 2100? It could evolve into a more significant fraction of the total anthropogenic warming effect.
"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday issued a peer-reviewed 260-page report, which agency chief Kathryn Sullivan calls its annual "checking on the pulse of the planet." The report, written by 384 scientists around the world, compiles data already released, but it puts them in context of what's been happening to Earth over decades."
Per NOAA's dataset, over the last 15 years for the 12-mth periods ending June, the continental U.S. has been cooling, robustly.
This took place while CO2 levels were well above the "safe" 350ppm mark.
Interesting reading for those of us who stop to read. Cool summer here in Canada this year. At this point the Arctic Ice melt is well within the standard variability and the ice flows are much stronger than the 2012 dip caused by Pacific Ocean currents.
I guess I could start spouting "ice age now" but I won't because that isn't true either.
Interesting reading for those of us who stop to read. Cool summer here in Canada this year. At this point the Arctic Ice melt is well within the standard variability and the ice flows are much stronger than the 2012 dip caused by Pacific Ocean currents.
I guess I could start spouting "ice age now" but I won't because that isn't true either.
Polar bear expert debunks dead polar bear claims: ‘Ian Stirling’s howler update: contradicted by scientific data’: ‘Winter/spring ice conditions in 2013 did not result in an unusual number of bears in poor body condition compared to previous years, back to 1993′ http://www.climatedepot.com...n-an-unusual-number/
Ray, the term cherry picking does not apply. If you are following Arctic climate reports and the polar bear population trends, the evidence is pretty much overwhelming.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Flyin whoever you are, you really are a piece of work.
So you deny there are about 26000 polar bears and that the population has been increasing the past 20 years?
Nope. Never have.
You deny that conservation efforts have had a positive impact on polar bears. You believe their numbers are a sign climate change isn't real as if they should be extinct by now. Polar bears are not a climate change metric. Temperature records are.
There's also zero evidence that polar bear populations are increasing. In fact, we have evidence of the opposite. According to PBSG, out of the 12 populations we have data for only 1 population is increasing, 3 are stable and 8 ARE IN DECLINE. Out of the 8 in decline, 6 are very high risk for future decline. Source.
Your claims that polar bears are increasing are unsupported by evidence. The opposite is true. Climate change is a legitimate threat to the survival of polar bears.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You deny the Arctic research folks and the Canadian government do not consider the species endangered?
Nope, never said that either.
What I have said multiple times is we have scientific evidence polar bears are looking longer and harder for food due to lack of sea ice. Source.
In addition, evidence provided by YOU shows these same 'research folks' and 'Environment Canada' consider climate change a threat to polar bears because polar bears have evolved into a niche sea ice dependent species. You disagree with your own evidence. Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You deny your exaggerated graphs are talking about 1 to 1.5 degree of movement over the better part of a century?
No, ~1*C over the last 50 years. 1.5*C over the last 250 years. Source.
The warming is accelerating.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You deny that the IPCC and Al Gore forecasted global catastrophes as they sought out government money?
What are you talking about? I asked you to cite examples. You have not done that. Cite some examples.
Also, I don't use Inhofe and Coburn as examples to support my cause due to the clueless things they say because I realize politicians don't mean a thing when it comes to science.
You wish to have a discussion about Al Gore because you're trying to associate climate change with Democrats. Climate change effects this entire planet, not just Democrats.
Anytime someone mentions Al Gore as an argument against climate change it's obvious they don't have a clue what they're talking about. Like some random guy in a parking lot who "loves Fiero's" but wants me to pop the hood to see the engine. It's just awkward telling you how wrong you are.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You haven't read the posts going back to 2008 on this thread that show the lies and uncover the truth?
Actually I did a lot of reading on previous posts and all of it is nonsense. There is no evidence 'against' anthropogenic global warming.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: I have to say you can argue well, but so can a sociopath.
Good to know you think anyone who tries to form opinions based on solid evidence is just a sociopath. It explains a lot of your failings thus far.
