[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

And I'll just say that's bullshit because the vast majority of scientists are not agreeing with it. They say 1998-2001. They also don't agree with the IPCC, Al Gore or the Global Warming Alarmist scenario.

What are you talking about? How can the vast majority of scientists not agree with it? It's factual information, PaperNotes, available from any number of papers and posted there on NASA's own web site. It isn't "biased IPCC information."

You're acting shockingly ridiculous here. It's astounding.

greg

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

eBuddy did provide some peer-reviewed studies in the middle somewhere. Good luck finding them now, though.

No, he hasn't. He's linked to a lot of stories, including one about Mars where he drew the exact opposite conclusion than what was presented in the story.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

They devote a whole section of the documentary to tropospheric measurements. The scientists who speak and did the measurements are from MIT and another is a lead author of the 2001 IPCC report (though he had his words changed by non-scientists and the data on the troposphere has been removed).

Again you're only taking evidence you want to see and use it to support your opinion and are completely ignoring the conclusion. What that section of the IPCC was pointing out was that the studies couldn't fully account for the temperature fluctuations in the troposphere. The level of water vapor is negligible and didn't affect significantly the outcome of the climate model.

However, we do know that water vapor in the tropopause can have affect on radiation absorption, thereby affecting areas where the lower troposphere interacts with higher ground. When the IPCC report is updated, and new, relevant information is included, this will be reflected in the new report.

What you (and your friends) don't understand is that science is not set in stone. It changes when new information and observations come to light. Future climate models will include this new information and revisions to the models presented in the IPCC report will reflect the new information.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

And I'll just say that's bullshit because the vast majority of scientists are not agreeing with it. They say 1998-2001. They also don't agree with the IPCC, Al Gore or the Global Warming Alarmist scenario.

What "vast majority of scientists" are you talking about? If you quote that survey from the Oregon Institute, I'm going to slap you.

[besson3c]

Maybe this scientist?




P.S. where are his eyes?

[PaperNotes]

Again you're only taking evidence you want to see and use it to support your opinion and are completely ignoring the conclusion.

Well...no, that's what you alarmists do.

And whenever I ask you serious questions that require very simple answers you ignore them.

1. You avoid all mentions of Marxist connections to the environmental movement.
2. You avoid all mention that the only people who will benefit from things such as carbon trading will be the elites.
3. You still can't haven't responded to my question about how much of the miniscule 0.8 degrees celsius rise can be attributed to carbon dioxide emissions. Nobody can. We can however say with all confidence that the most if not all of that rise is from coming out of the Little Ice Age and from ground-based temperature monitors influenced by the Urban Heat Island Effect.
4. You try to avoid all discussion of PDO and solar activity.
5. You mocked the global petition signed by over 32,000 scientists who do not support the theory of manmade global warming. You said it was fake, even though it was verified, cross checked and triple checked when it hit 30,000 signatures. This disdain you have for a democratic opinion reveals a lot about your character and where you are coming from.
6. Your ridiculous assertion that temps in the Antarctic region go up by 0.4C every year was very funny. If this was remotely true we would see a proportionate increase elsewhere in the world, yet global warming so far is at most 0.8C OVER THE LAST 120 YEARS and it is now falling.

However, we do know that water vapor in the tropopause can have affect on radiation absorption, thereby affecting areas where the lower troposphere interacts with higher ground.

Water Vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. If it was absorbing radiation from the carbon dioxide we should see the temperature increase there too, proportionate to the increases in carbon dioxide output every year. We don't see the temperature increase there either.

When the IPCC report is updated, and new, relevant information is included, this will be reflected in the new report.

Well these are big promises and there's no scientific consensus or accountability in the IPCC. Governments are already basing their policies based on past reports. This tells you that updated reports are irrelevant because the UN/IPCC, EU and elitist politicians made up their minds long ago regardless if the science shows carbon dioxide isn't driving temperatures. It's not a question of science anymore, but of political control.

What you (and your friends) don't understand is that science is not set in stone. It changes when new information and observations come to light. Future climate models will include this new information and revisions to the models presented in the IPCC report will reflect the new information.

Talk about trying to squirm yourself out of the corner. The political and media elite and the IPCC have been acting like the science was settled long ago, that it is set in stone, that there will not be any open public debate on the matter, and that all real debate will have to be confined to alternative channels.

That is the opposite of how scientific study and debate works. It is also the opposite of how democracy works. It is also the opposite of how political decisions should be made only when the science is settled and the costs of all political actions have been taken into account.

Instead of that we have elites helping themselves to the free money that they'll make from thin air when they'll enforce cap and trade on all businesses, small or large, and who knows maybe even on individuals if they could get away with it.

This is an elitist daylight robbery that only bankers and carbon brokers will get the financial benefits from. The working class will suffer because companies will pass on the cost of purchasing carbon credits to consumers. Obama has said himself that he will make business very expensive for the oil and coal industries and that they'll pass on the cost to consumers. Al Gore can already smell the massive profits his carbon trading company will make.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

What "vast majority of scientists" are you talking about? If you quote that survey from the Oregon Institute, I'm going to slap you.

I'm talking about thousands of scientists worldwide that aren't allowed a voice by the mainstream media. Thousands who signed a verified petition. Prominent names who reveal the truth every day.

And if you think you could ever slap me in person forget it. You would be finished before your hand twitched.

[PaperNotes]

I still welcome anyone to take on Durkin. Try it. Find the errors in his science and list them right here. Then I'll bring him and other major scientists here.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...C-FC772A431C8B

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I still welcome anyone to take on Durkin. Try it. Find the errors in his science and list them right here. Then I'll bring him and other major scientists here.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...C-FC772A431C8B

What science? Durkin isn't a scientist. He doesn't do research. He's not paid to study Earth's climate. He doesn't have any education on the subject. He doesn't even say a thing about climate science in the interview. He just goes on about ideological battles and social development of "the green movement" and the "mental illness of the lefties." There's no science there in that article at all. That you think there is, amazes me.

In my eyes this interview discredits him even more. When you start to make an ideological battle out of scientific issues, all hope for rational discussion is lost – as evidenced in this very thread, by your steadfast and continuted refusal to admit being factually wrong, no matter how many times and in what manner it's proven:

Originally Posted by PaperNotes

5. You mocked the global petition signed by over 32,000 scientists who do not support the theory of manmade global warming. You said it was fake, even though it was verified, cross checked and triple checked when it hit 30,000 signatures.

Uhhhh, buddy...you seem to have conveniently forgotten that a quick, internet cross-reference by Uncle Skeleton in this very thread, pulling a half-dozen names out of a 30,000+ hat, came up with inconsistencies and errors in that list. Are you telling me I should believe someone who triple-checked this list, when apparently they can't even do that with any level of competency?

That kind of failure rate is astounding. Just as astounding as your refusal to acknowledge this problem with your list, or just as astounding as your continued refusal to provide any valid scientific proof at all for your claims.

Oh, and we're still waiting for the research paper you mentioned. Waiting. Still waiting. Just a link. Maybe a name...or an author? Waiting. Still waiting.

greg

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Well...no, that's what you alarmists do.

You ARE stupendousman. Holy crap. No wonder I can't make any leeway. I just debunked your argument about the IPCC report and you're still accusing me of manipulating the information. Forget sand, your head is quite obviously firmly set in cement.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

And whenever I ask you serious questions that require very simple answers you ignore them.

Climatology is not simple. That is one of your huge failings and misguided conception.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

1. You avoid all mentions of Marxist connections to the environmental movement.
2. You avoid all mention that the only people who will benefit from things such as carbon trading will be the elites.
3. You still can't haven't responded to my question about how much of the miniscule 0.8 degrees celsius rise can be attributed to carbon dioxide emissions. Nobody can. We can however say with all confidence that the most if not all of that rise is from coming out of the Little Ice Age and from ground-based temperature monitors influenced by the Urban Heat Island Effect.
4. You try to avoid all discussion of PDO and solar activity.
5. You mocked the global petition signed by over 32,000 scientists who do not support the theory of manmade global warming. You said it was fake, even though it was verified, cross checked and triple checked when it hit 30,000 signatures. This disdain you have for a democratic opinion reveals a lot about your character and where you are coming from.
6. Your ridiculous assertion that temps in the Antarctic region go up by 0.4C every year was very funny. If this was remotely true we would see a proportionate increase elsewhere in the world, yet global warming so far is at most 0.8C OVER THE LAST 120 YEARS and it is now falling.

1. That is a separate agenda by other people with political motivations. Scientists have little control over what people use their data for. You, for example.
2. Again, that is a separate political agenda. How politicians choose to use the information (or not use it, as is the case with the Bush Administration) is up to them. Scientists do the research and provide the relevant data, they don't make the policies. If you're against taxing emissions, then carbon trading is a reasonable alternative. You're also forgetting that this is not about climate change in the sense that we're arguing it here, but about small improvements in regional areas that were having pollution problems.
3. I can't answer that question because I don't know the answer, I can only show you information that points to the most likely conclusion based on the evidence presented. Once again, even in your own sentence, you demonstrate your ability to take only the information you want to see and use it for your opinion. Nobody can explain it, but then you say "we" can with all confidence.
4. Solar cycles have a measurable affect on the temperature as a whole and have been included variables in the climate models. You're like the Intelligent Design people, trying to invent this idea there's some sort of war going on between scientists when there isn't.
5. Wrong. The Oregon Petition has not been verified. Ever. That is the problem with it. It was original circulated fraudulently to look like a science journal that had been peer reviewed. The original petition was a fabrication by a group of 6 people who call themselves "The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine." Do you know what they do? They sell Christian home schooling kits and Doomsday Survival kits. Yeah, real scientific. Scientific American did attempt to verify the signatories. Of the 31,000 so-called signatures, there were 200 verified. Granted, 200 isn't a small number, but that is only a fraction of the climatology community. Most of the signatories were either 1, fake; 2, dead; 3, didn't know they had signed it; and 4, wouldn't have signed it if they had known it wasn't a peer reviewed science journal that the Oregon Institute had been masquerading it to be. The consensus stands and your list is complete crap.
6. Again, you've managed to completely ignore what I said about microclimates and how they react to a mean global temperature increase as I sated before, again, many times. Different regions will react differently with fluctuations in temperature increases, decreases, or no changes at all. That is the point of an average temperature.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Water Vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas.

99.99% of it which is in the troposphere.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

If it was absorbing radiation from the carbon dioxide we should see the temperature increase there too, proportionate to the increases in carbon dioxide output every year. We don't see the temperature increase there either.

Water vapor doesn't interact with ozone in the stratosphere, heavy carbons do. That is why we monitor the carbon output, and that is why the affect is negligible on climate models. You conveniently ignored the part about where the lower atmosphere interacts with higher ground levels (like the Himalayas) is the exception, but as I have already pointed out countless times, regional areas react differently to that of the global mean temperature increase. It would be better to do a separate climate study on those exceptions (since the results would likely be unique for each region) rather than modifying an already extremely complex global climate model.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Well these are big promises and there's no scientific consensus or accountability in the IPCC.

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word consensus.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Governments are already basing their policies based on past reports. This tells you that updated reports are irrelevant because the UN/IPCC, EU and elitist politicians made up their minds long ago regardless if the science shows carbon dioxide isn't driving temperatures. It's not a question of science anymore, but of political control.

With the exception of your hyperbole in regards to carbon and temperatures, I would actually agree with you on this point. Making policy on old data is a bad idea. Making policies that can't be changed in lieu of new data is mistake. Policies are being made on both sides of the aisle to further personal and political agenda despite scientific evidence.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Talk about trying to squirm yourself out of the corner. The political and media elite and the IPCC have been acting like the science was settled long ago, that it is set in stone, that there will not be any open public debate on the matter, and that all real debate will have to be confined to alternative channels.

I can't speak for the political and media elite, but you are absolutely wrong about the IPCC. First of all, in typical fashion, you have absolutely, completely ignored everything that I've said in regards to scientific study. It's only fitting that you're taking exactly the opposite position that I had previously stated was practically the foundation of scientific discovery; it is not set in stone. New testing, studies, evidence, and observations mean that science is ever evolving and is never 100% certain. Science is about probability, that something is most likely the correct answer.

Science is all about debate, what makes a scientific theory is precisely the point that something can be shown to be wrong.

Like I said at the beginning of this thread, if you think the conclusion is wrong, then produce a peer-reviewed study that shows the contrary. Until you can do that, there is no argument.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You ARE stupendousman. Holy crap. No wonder I can't make any leeway. I just debunked your argument about the IPCC report and you're still accusing me of manipulating the information. Forget sand, your head is quite obviously firmly set in cement.

When you were presented by hard evidence from IPCC scientists that their words had been changed, that they had concluded nobody could know how much influence man had on global climate change, you ignored. Respond right away regarding alterations to Chapter 8 of the IPCC report that I cited.

Climatology is not simple. That is one of your huge failings and misguided conception.

It seems to be very simple to the governments, the UN and the environmentalist lobby. They decided the outcome of research long ago.

1. That is a separate agenda by other people with political motivations. Scientists have little control over what people use their data for.

Scientists lean left, right and neautral. They are humans and have agendas too. They also need money like any other person. The ones who need it the most will say anything to get it. I have already cited a NASA scientist, several well known ecologists and meteorologists who said so about others.

2. How politicians choose to use the information (or not use it, as is the case with the Bush Administration) is up to them.

So you agree there are political agendas. Therefore you should agree that the IPCC is a political organisation (it is the UN after all) and that the Chapter 8 cited was altered by non-scientists.

Scientists do the research and provide the relevant data, they don't make the policies.

This is not totally true. Many scientists shape data to suit agendas. Michael Mann's infamous Hockey Stick graph is a perfect example of how science can be skewed to fit politics. Scientists have been doing this since for decades in many countries. Take Aryan race theory as an example, which was used by the Nazis to commit their crimes.

If you're against taxing emissions, then carbon trading is a reasonable alternative.

Carbon Trading is unreasonable if it can't be proven that carbon dioxide causes global warming/climate change. It never has and it isn't right now.

4. Solar cycles have a measurable affect on the temperature as a whole and have been included variables in the climate models.

Ahem, Michael Mann's hockey stick graph did not use solar cycle data, neither did it use PDO, and it erased the Medieval Climate Optimum and Little Ice Age from history. It used some tree ring data and then he made sure that no matter what data you input that it would always return a hockey stick shape.

You're like the Intelligent Design people, trying to invent this idea there's some sort of war going on between scientists when there isn't.

This is a remarkable accusation by someone who supports the anthropological view of the world that man's influence is so massive he could actually change the climate! Intelligent Design and Creationism make the same mistake of putting man in such a lofty position. Hard science makes mankind almost irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

5. Wrong. The Oregon Petition has not been verified. Ever.

Now that you've repeated this I'm going to have people come to this forum and destroy you.

I would actually agree with you on this point. Making policy on old data is a bad idea. Making policies that can't be changed in lieu of new data is mistake. Policies are being made on both sides of the aisle to further personal and political agenda despite scientific evidence.

Ah. Thanks.

I can't speak for the political and media elite, but you are absolutely wrong about the IPCC.

The IPCC is unaccountable and not transparent. They have used the names of scientists without permission, they have been legally challenged by scientists whose names have been used without permission, and non-scientists on the panel have altered texts to make them come to conclusions that have not been reached.

In short, it is a UN panel and the UN has shown time and time again it isn't interested in accountability or transparency. It is a political body who have taken bribes, been involved in numerous scandals, has bent over to extremist groups and dictators often, and has stood and watched mass murder take place regularly, as it is doing again right now in the Congo.

[PaperNotes]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/m...e#contentSwap1

Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply.

As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: "We're at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]".

Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there's been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear.

Central to this is the importance of government funding to science. Much of that funding since World War II has occurred because scientists build up public fears (examples include fear of the USSR's superiority in weapons or space travel, of health problems, of environmental degradation) and offer themselves as the solution to those fears. The administrators who work with the scientists join in with enthusiasm: much of their own funding is attached to the scientific grants. Lindzen says this state of affairs favours science involving fear, and also science that involves expensive activities such as computer modelling. He notes we have seen "the de-emphasis of theory because of its difficulty and small scale, the encouragement of simulation instead (with its call for large capital investment in computation), and the encouragement of large programs unconstrained by specific goals.

"In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and [computer] programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage."

Lindzen believes another problem with climate science is that in America and Europe it is heavily colonised by environmental activists.

Here are just two examples that indicate the scale of the problem: the spokesman for the American Meteorological Society is a former staffer for Al Gore, and realclimate.org, probably the world's most authoritative alarmist web site, was started by a public relations firm serving environmental causes.

None of this is necessarily sinister, but the next time you hear a scientist or scientific organisation warning of climate doom, you might want to follow the money trail.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

None of this is necessarily sinister, but the next time you hear a scientist or scientific organisation warning of climate doom, you might want to follow the money trail.

I find this quote hilarious. "Follow the money trail?" What money? Where is the "money trail" in climate science, I ask you? Perhaps other scientists on the board such as Uncle Skeleton might care to confirm this allegation that climate science is in fact the "money trail" of the scientific field?

and realclimate.org, probably the world's most authoritative alarmist web site, was started by a public relations firm serving environmental causes.

This is a hilarious lie. An environmental-based firm hosts the site, and the initial press release announcing the site was delivered by an environmental public-relations firm. Neither have anything to do with the site itself. The people who started it, and who run it, are climate scientists (including Michael Mann). They hired both those companies to do those things.

As I've told you before, when you keep posting obvious lies, it's hard to take anything you say seriously.

greg

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I find this quote hilarious. "Follow the money trail?" What money? Where is the "money trail" in climate science, I ask you?
greg

No money trail? Craziness!

[PaperNotes]

Prophet Gore, Peace Be Upon Him, has gained about 100 pounds since making his scifi comedy horror film. Very energy efficient person clearly! Eats much better than most people and tells everyone to cut down and ration!



The idiot also believes that a new nationwide smart grid that draws all its power from renewables and non-carbon sources will pay for itself in "three years". This is yet another example of his appalling maths and scientific ability. No doubt he is financially placed to gain from these ideas, just like when he set up a Carbon Trading company before he made his movie and just like when he told Apple to give him lots of heavily discounted shares and a position on Apple's board because he was going to put Apple products in the film (otherwise he would have gone to Dell)

America needs a "unified national smart grid" distributing renewable solar energy across the country, something that he estimates would cost $400 billion in a decade. But it would create thousands of jobs, Gore said, and it would pay for itself within three years. When Obama takes office in January, Gore said that the new president ought to set "a national goal of getting 100 percent of America's electricity from renewable and non-carbon sources within 10 years. We can do that."

This man is an organised criminal. Someone should put him down.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I find this quote hilarious. "Follow the money trail?" What money? Where is the "money trail" in climate science, I ask you? Perhaps other scientists on the board such as Uncle Skeleton might care to confirm this allegation that climate science is in fact the "money trail" of the scientific field?

Well, you're right there's no money for scientists to study climate. But there is lots of money to be made off the climate (from both believers and skeptics). We already talked about it in this thread. There's also campaign contributions (from both sides). I wouldn't be surprised to learn that PaperNotes has contributed his fair share to the "money trail" of climate change skepticism... Actual honest scientific organisations [sic] don't make much money at all off of climate change research, but considering that his idea of "scientific organisation" includes places like the Oregon Institute of Bilking Skeptics, he's more right than he knows.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that PaperNotes has contributed his fair share to the "money trail" of climate change skepticism..

LOL. If I wanted to make money I'd support the Global Warming Alarmist/Climate Change agenda. It's made Al Gore very rich and David Meyer Rothschild has gotten involved as a rabid environmentalist too as he said himself "There's a lot of money to be made.".

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

LOL. If I wanted to make money I'd support the Global Warming Alarmist/Climate Change agenda. It's made Al Gore very rich and David Meyer Rothschild has gotten involved as a rabid environmentalist too as he said himself "There's a lot of money to be made.".

Really? You really think so?

I mean, I think the only way serious consideration of sustainable development will take off is to make "green business" economically attractive...but I haven't seen much indication that it's making anyone other than a select few "very rich," or that it's a booming industry as of yet. So far it seems more of a "saving money" proposition to business, rather than a "making money" venture as you suggest.

You can point to Al Gore all you want, but he was a wealthy man long before environmental business came into play.

And to add to that... it's rather disingenuous on your part to suggest any sort of climate change agenda because of "money to be made," when the large emitting industries which disapprove of this agenda make several orders of magnitude more money, no?

greg

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Really? You really think so?

greg

It's a fact that Gore set up his Carbon Trading company before he made his movie. It's a fact that David Meyer Rothschild said there is big money to be made from environmentalism.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

1. Gore's been more-or-less active on the environmental front for probably a couple decades now. I personally don't know his income or anything, but I would be interested in knowing how successful his company has been, how much of that success can be attributed to the pop-culture effect of his movie, and how much of that success can be attributed to his previous reputation and wealth. (I mean, if Bill Gates up and started an environmental company, the name alone would guarantee some level of success. I think that principle could possibly apply in Gore's case, although to be fair I know nothing about his business.)

2. If there's big money to be made from environmentalism, who's making it? So far we've got Al Gore, and I don't even know how much he's making.

3. So what if there's "big money" to be made from environmentalism? That's a good thing, right? Sustainable development, protection of valuable natural resources, that sort of thing? Many ecological functions are estimated to possess a huge economic value for human society and functioning, so economic incentives to protecting these values seems like a great idea to me.

4. Your definition of "big money" would be interesting to hear. A single large fossil-fuel provider (Exxon) netted over $14 billion last quarter alone. Seems to me there's much bigger money to be made in just rampantly emitting greenhouse gases, no? By your own logic, that should make us automatically suspicious of anyone connected to such "money-making"...but wait, in this very thread there have been numerous complaints about the improper dismissal of climate-skeptic evidence produced by industry-funded "scientists." Well, which is it? You would seem to want it both ways.

greg

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

1. Gore's been more-or-less active on the environmental front for probably a couple decades now.

A college drop out and failed theologian had to have something to do.

2. If there's big money to be made from environmentalism, who's making it?

Green groups and the media use fear mongering to increase public awareness towards them. The result is more newspaper sold and more clicks on web based adverts for the media organisations. For Green "charities" (hardly charitable at all in practice) it's more donations from society's ill informed, gullible and easily made guilty.

Carbon trading companies also take advantage of the gullible by selling them carbon credits, the modern equivalent of the Catholic Church's Indulgences.

A carbon stock exchange has opened up in Chicago which will allow bankers and stock traders to fill their pockets with society's guilt complex. Carbon stock exchanges are set to grow if the elite can keep getting away with this lie.

Companies who will be given the rights to sequester and store carbon underground will profit greatly.

The storage and compression of carbon underground in high pressure vaults will eventually profit the diamond industry to the tune of billions of dollars as diamonds are highly compressed pure carbon.

Green taxes such as congestion charges (that don't work) and taxes on energy consumption in offices and homes are already being put in place. Gordon Brown has signalled his attention to do that again today.

Obama and Brown have both signalled their intent to create millions of Green-collar jobs involving an army of young people who will inspect homes and offices for energy efficiency. Some youth will be asked to do these jobs for free in exchange for education, others will be employed permanently. The purpose of this job is to hand out penalty fines wherever possible. This will increase government power over the population.

3. So what if there's "big money" to be made from environmentalism? That's a good thing, right?

No, because lying and faking science is counterproductive to civilisation and Enlightenment values. People are naturally environmental and don't need to be manipulated by false science. Industrial and technological development inevitably results in better wealth distribution, better energy efficiency, better care of nature. It is consumer awareness and the natural collective conscience of the free market that calls for positive changes, without being lied to or forced by government.

Sustainable development, protection of valuable natural resources, that sort of thing?

Take a look at the moral zeitgeist of the 21st century - the way we look after pets; the way we landscape our cities with plants, trees and parks; the way our rivers have cleaned up; the way our computers are every more powerful and energy efficient; the way our flat panel displays are more efficient than televisions, the way a modern car is more efficient than a Ford Model T, etc.

That is a naturally evolving product of consumer awareness and corporate technological innovation without interference from Green groups or government (some may argue against this but I'll take their arguments apart too). In most cases it was the demands of the population that got governments to improve social services that kept streets clean, improved drinking water and created green spaces.

Now turn your attention to forests. Environmental groups like to protest that we are cutting down all the forests of the world. This is a fallacy. For every tree we see being cut down in a tropical rainforest, we see roughly the same amount of trees planted elsewhere, especially to pretty up our cities.

The amount of North American forest cover has remained constant in the last 100 years (according to Patrick Moore and many other REAL ecologists) because the basic rule of supply and demand meant that foresters and the furniture industry made sure that for every tree they cut down they plant a new one. This keeps their industry alive and sustains nature!

Now take a look at the record of environmental groups such as Greenpeace who actually tried to have chlorine banned universally! Imagine the deaths that would have resulted from that. More than the deaths that resulted from the ban on DDT. We don't need that kind of crazed, unnatural and forced environmentalism that does more harm to health and human rights.

4. Your definition of "big money" would be interesting to hear. A single large fossil-fuel provider (Exxon) netted over $14 billion last quarter alone.

And it costs billions in future investment to keep up their operations. Extracting and refining oil doesn't come cheap. These are the guys who keep the world moving forward so you can go to work and feed yourself, these are the guys who reinvest billions on more research and development so that there is a post-petrolium world. Yet they are always attacked by the most moronic and viscious elements of society who naively and jealously believe these "quarterly profits" go into their pockets and are never reinvested.

Now back to the debate on manmade global warming. Again, it is nonsense. Carbon doesn't cause global warming at all and I further produce YET MORE EVIDENCE. This time from Australia's Professor Bob Carter who proves (using the data that Gore and the IPCC skewed) that carbon does not cause warming and that we are in a cooling phase.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No, he hasn't. He's linked to a lot of stories, including one about Mars where he drew the exact opposite conclusion than what was presented in the story.

What are you talking about now slappy?

[PaperNotes]

Prof Roy Spencer proves that the Climate Models used by the IPCC are flawed. Their tropospheric modeling is entirely wrong.

(2 parts)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xos49g1sdzo

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Carbon doesn't cause global warming at all ...

Ya think? Who are you arguing this point with?

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Ya think? Who are you arguing this point with?

I present the evidence every day. Debate it.

I should reword what I said though to "Carbon dioxide does not drive global temperatures and there is no evidence it will cause catastrophic global warming."

The planet is not in peril as Obama and Gore say it is.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I should reword what I said though to "Carbon dioxide does not drive global temperatures and there is no evidence it will cause catastrophic global warming."

Ah. That's better. Now you sound like you might know what you're talking about.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/m...e#contentSwap1

This is the graph referred to in the article:


the rebuttal: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008...t_it_again.php

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

the rebuttal: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008...t_it_again.php

This rebuttal isn't scientific. It started off with this howler:

Far from being a "sharp cooling", the trend is a warming rate of 19 degrees C per decade.

This was so laughable that his comments section looked like Jerry Seinfield's audience. So the author changed it to:

Far from being a "sharp cooling", the trend is a warming rate of 3.5 degrees C per decade. Of course, this doesn't mean anything, because changes in temperature on monthly or annual scales are weather and not climate.

Which is still unrealistic because the global warming observed since the inception of meteorology in the mid 1800s to present day is 1 degree C or less, including the factors such as Urban Heat Island Effect and natural temperature rise coming out of the Little Ice Age noted by others in this discussion and elsewhere.

The comments left on that page were more scientific than the rebuttal itself.

So your attempt at finding a rebuttal for the above articles fails badly. It would help you greatly to study what you read instead of just Googling for stuff that you think supports the Catastrophic Global Warming Cult.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

This rebuttal isn't scientific. It started off with this howler:

If by "started off", you meant halfway through the article, you would be correct.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Which is still unrealistic because the global warming observed since the inception of meteorology in the mid 1800s to present day is 1 degree C or less, including the factors such as Urban Heat Island Effect and natural temperature rise coming out of the Little Ice Age noted by others in this discussion and elsewhere.

Well aren't you the little ****ing genuis? You quoted the important part and totally missed the point.

Of course, this doesn't mean anything, because changes in temperature on monthly or annual scales are weather and not climate.

And your[sic] all like 'that's unrealistic'!

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

So your attempt at finding a rebuttal for the above articles fails badly.

I'm so embarrassed right now. My face is red. (Gee, i hope no one reads those articles now)

From Duffy's article:

Originally Posted by Michael Duffy

For the past year, there's been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: ...

But surprisingly, facts are not brought into the discussion. Like literally, not even a single number, not even a year. I really don't think there are any digits in that article. I could regex it and maybe find one number somewhere, but seriously, what good are numbers (facts, figures, data or what have you) when we're talking about quantifiable data?

I mean we should just trust that cooling means cooling because he says cooling? Right? I mean you did... What data from Duffy's article convinces you that there is cooling and not warming? Even if only over the statistically insignificant time period of one year.

Originally Posted by Michael Duffy

... the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites.

And we go to the Hadley Centre's website (as requested and because this is science) and we check the data for ourselves (as requested and because this is science) and find that Michael Duffy is talking out of his ass. Because...

For the past year, there's hasn't been a sharp cooling. In fact (or is it 'in opinion'?), the anamolies for each month of the past year indicate that the trend is warming.

Duffy thinks that a single year can make or break the warming we are experiencing, but it can't. He proposes we look at this year, just to prove that these facts pan out, and lo and behold, even while entertaining his dubious assertion (and its supposed implication), we find that he is completely and utterly wrong.

Anyone who read the article would have seen that, and would have saved me from having to rehash the article, but as has become apparent in this thread, people don't read, or if they do, they don't understand.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

And we go to the Hadley Centre's website (as requested and because this is science) and we check the data for ourselves (as requested and because this is science) and find that Michael Duffy is talking out of his ass. Because...

For the past year, there's hasn't been a sharp cooling. In fact (or is it 'in opinion'?), the anamolies for each month of the past year indicate that the trend is warming.

That is one data set, neatly cherry picked and very debatable.

It's not warming at all. This year we've seen the coldest October in northern Europe since the 1940s and the first time London was covered in snow in October since 1934. The Arctic Circle had grown by 10% by the end of the summer this year over 2007's ice cover, backed by satellite photos.

Almost every scientist is saying global cooling now, but we still get the odd hysteria backing nut who says global warming and you turn all your attention to that person. Why doesn't the media cover both sides of the debate? Because hysteria sells. Hysteria grabs attention. Hysteria allows politicians to pass laws without open debate.

Papernotes has pulled up many facts that you can't debate. You can't come close to it. I haven't seen any of you rebutters explain how much of the less than 1 degree C warming in the last one and a half centuries is manmade. We know for sure that the Urban Heat Island effect has skewed the data too. How can it even be unnatural when we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age?

All your arguments fall flat.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

That is one data set, neatly cherry picked and very debatable.

It is curious that Duffy chose a dataset that didn't even jive with his own beliefs. I didn't choose the dataset. Take it up with Duffy, not me.

The tragic thing about PaperNotes (and I understand he's banned or something so I'll just leave it at this post) is that he couldn't even appreciate the information in the articles he, himself, posted. When asked to provide a dataset, any dataset, that would corroborate his statement that the earth was no warmer than in 1998, he couldn't or wouldn't. Though, the Hadley Centre provided that information! And it was in his links!

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...e/myths/2.html

It shows that, globally, 1998 is warmer than 2005! Yeah, I found that. And you said I didn't read up on anything.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

It's not warming at all. This year we've seen the coldest October in northern Europe since the 1940s and the first time London was covered in snow in October since 1934. The Arctic Circle had grown by 10% by the end of the summer this year over 2007's ice cover, backed by satellite photos.

First off, the Arctic Circle has not grown. It is, and has always been, firmly planted at 66° 33′39″ since, like, forever.

Oh, you meant Arctic Sea Ice? But you wrote Arctic Circle. I see.

Wow, 10% is a lot (and it's a number. yay!). Last years "amazing" recovery is still 15% less than in 2005, which broke the record at the time. Here is a graph of the sea-ice extents (again).


The graph doesn't show the full picture, because it is flat, two-dimensional. What is neglected is the third-dimension, like we face in reality. Even if you believe that this slight increase in sea-ice in the past year, you can't deny that the data in that third (un-graphed) dimension is ominous.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002...ssrelease.html

The fact that the sea-ice now is at it's thinnest is scary for me. Because, unlike the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet, the Arctic Sea Ice is affected by warm water temperatures below it and the warming air temperatures above it. 50% of that current ice is this thin first-year ice.

I know I've posted before. So I'll ask you. Specifically, what don't you like about this information? Why does a thinning sea-ice give you confidence that it is doing anything other than melting?

Secondly, in response to 'we had snow in October', what of it? We had snow in NTX, in March last year. I reiterate:

Of course, this doesn't mean anything, because changes in temperature on monthly or annual scales are weather and not climate.

If you want to talk about Global Weather, then start a thread about it. We are (or should be) dealing with Climate in this thread.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Almost every scientist is saying global cooling now, but we still get the odd hysteria backing nut who says global warming and you turn all your attention to that person. Why doesn't the media cover both sides of the debate? Because hysteria sells. Hysteria grabs attention. Hysteria allows politicians to pass laws without open debate.

Almost every scientist? What do they disagree with? The science or the hype/hysteria?

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Papernotes has pulled up many facts that you can't debate. You can't come close to it.

What did I just do? PaperNotes' last post in this thread is the article I just debunked. The article that stated that cooling was happening. The article whose author 'cherry-picked' the dataset that contradicted his own argument.

Maybe you're right. I don't have to do anything. The contrarians do it for me!

Not the first time it's happened.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

I haven't seen any of you rebutters explain how much of the less than 1 degree C warming in the last one and a half centuries is manmade.

All of it? It's been shown in the last few pages that the amount of energy the sun has been putting up has remained level for the past 60 years. For it to be caused by the sun, it would break the Laws of Thermodynamics. THAT would be awesome!

What else could it be? Greenhouse Gas is just hanging out in the atmosphere growing every year, and nobody wants to acknowledge it.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

All your arguments fall flat.

I just gave you some stuff to chew on, let's discuss it and see.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...e/myths/2.html

It shows that, globally, 1998 is warmer than 2005! Yeah, I found that. And you said I didn't read up on anything.

Keep in mind that it depends on which data set you're using, the CRU (which Hadley uses) or GISS (which NASA uses).

There are slight differences in each; perhaps the most significant one is that GISS extrapolates Arctic temperatures, as I understand it. Thus GISSTemp graphs say that 2005 was actually warmer, while HadCRU say 2005 was slightly cooler.

Either way, just a minor addendum to your main point of a complete lack of reading comprehension on some people's parts.

greg

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

First off, the Arctic Circle has not grown. It is, and has always been, firmly planted at 66° 33′39″ since, like, forever.

Oh, you meant Arctic Sea Ice? But you wrote Arctic Circle. I see.

Wow, 10% is a lot (and it's a number. yay!). Last years "amazing" recovery is still 15% less than in 2005

Arctic Ice, like ice all over the world, is always contracting and expanding. That's what ice does.

The fact that it has shrunk somewhat when we've come out of the Little Ice Age means nothing. Thank goodness it has shrunk otherwise most of the farms across the northern hemisphere of the world would have a very hard time growing crops.

Fancy starvation?

What did I just do? PaperNotes' last post in this thread is the article I just debunked.

I see no debunking. Paper Notes has posted oodles and oodles of charts that show global cooling. You picked one article, Googled for a debunk that was half-arsed (it claimed that decadal temperature increases were 19 degrees C, then changed it to 3.5 degrees C, which is still over 15 times higher than the IPCC's own estimates), and go around acting like it's a 100% debunk.

It's been shown in the last few pages that the amount of energy the sun has been putting up has remained level for the past 60 years.

LOL. Wow. What happened to the sun's 11 year sunspot cycles? Are you skewing data here??????

Not a surprise.

What else could it be? Greenhouse Gas is just hanging out in the atmosphere growing every year, and nobody wants to acknowledge it.

We're coming out of the Little Ice Age and there's something called the Urban Heat Island Effect that skewed data for all ground based thermometers.

If you claim that the full one degree rise in the last 150 years is all manmade that means you do not believe in natural climate change.

That in effect makes you a Climate Change Skeptic.

Facts are facts, baby. Out of that one degree rise, nobody knows how much is manmade because nobody has been able to show carbon dioxide drives climate change. If that could be proven I would be a believer right now, right this minute. I'd be up in arms telling people to cut their emissions.

We do know that climate changes naturally.

We do know that the majority of the last 10,000 years it has been warmer than it is today.

We do know that the Medieval Climate Optimum was warmer than today. We do know that there was a Little Ice Age.

We do know that when the Romans were in the north of England it was warmer than it is today, and that they found grapevines growing everywhere and made wine from them.

We do know that the Little Ice Age couldn't last forever because there is no such thing as climate stasis.

We do know that the Urban Heat Island effect is responsible in large part for the skewed global warming data and that ground based thermometers are no longer useful.

We do know that carbon dioxide never drove temperatures in the past.

So what's left to blame on humans?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

At least a significant percentage of that "we know" list is, in fact, wrong. On at least a couple of them I've already shown you to be wrong, just in the last few pages.

But we've established that there's no point in showing you otherwise...you'll simply keep repeating the same incorrect facts, over and over.

greg

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

We do know that climate changes naturally.

Sure, but we also know that human activities can have an effect on climate.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Thank goodness it has shrunk otherwise most of the farms across the northern hemisphere of the world would have a very hard time growing crops.

Is this really what you meant to say? I originally read it early in the morning and thought it was just me being groggy from sleep, but now that I'm awake, I see that i read it correctly, and it's making me laugh.

It's equivalent to me saying - Thank goodness for the space shuttle otherwise all those astronauts on the ISS would be stranded.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

I see no debunking. Paper Notes has posted oodles and oodles of charts that show global cooling.

If by oodles and oodles, you mean two. (Does that mean an 'oddles' is equivalent to one?) To be fair I only went back 5 pages.

I, however, did post charts that show that the temperature is increasing (and that ice was melting), and the thorough debunking they received? link

Originally Posted by PaperNotes

LOL your maps and graphs are crap.

Cry cry babies.

Very thorough. Moving on...

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

You picked one article, Googled for a debunk that was half-arsed (it claimed that decadal temperature increases were 19 degrees C, then changed it to 3.5 degrees C, which is still over 15 times higher than the IPCC's own estimates), and go around acting like it's a 100% debunk.

For the last time, I DIDN'T PICK THE ARTICLE - PaperNotes did!


Climate doubts based on short-term irrelevancies

Duffy's suggestion that a temperature drop in the past year is significant is equivalent to assuming that because one or two spring days are cooler than a week before, summer won't occur.

Which is exactly the subtle point I have been making by calling out the temperatures in my hometown over the past few pages! (It's 55 today for anyone who cares. I don't much care for it.)

Duffy's claim that published research is biased towards sensationalism may be partly correct for a few high-profile journals (though this is not dominant, nor does it lead to bias towards any specific conclusion).

If you have problems with then sensationalism, then that is fine, and I would agree with you, it is a problem. But the problem does not lie with the science

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

We do know that when the Romans were in the north of England it was warmer than it is today, and that they found grapevines growing everywhere and made wine from them.

As they do to this day! Even in Northern England!

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

We do know that the Urban Heat Island effect is responsible in large part for the skewed global warming data and that ground based thermometers are no longer useful.

Urban Heat Island effect exaggerates warming

Originally Posted by The Argument

There has been a great deal of controversy about the accuracy of the temperature data, mainly the bias of temperature data due to urban heat island effect. This controversy has lead many to focus on rural temperature stations. Rural stations are intended to represent the cool breezy countryside, small towns, farms, trees and grass.

In recent weeks, researchers have been visiting these temperature stations. What they noticed was that there are serious problems with the quality of these temperature stations. They noticed that many of these temperature stations were located next to concrete buildings, near hot exhausts of air conditioning units, attached to metal towers and poles, surrounded by driveways and above gravel.

Originally Posted by The Reality

When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect. They compare urban long term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail on the NASA website (Hansen 2001).

They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). The point is they're aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records.

This confirms a peer review study by the NCDC (Peterson 2003) that did statistical analysis of urban and rural temperature anomalies and concluded "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures... Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions."

The article compares oodles and oodles of maps of the earth. The first oodles shows the earth at night, for population density and urban areas and the other oodles shows warming for 2005.




It's true! All those heavily urbanized cities in Alaska, Northern Canada, Greenland and Siberia are skewing the data!

[Helmling]

I'm astounded by two things:

1. That this thread is still going.

2. That anyone would believe it's fruitful to try to engage this PaperNotes fellow in discussion.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You're behind the times. A quick recap:

- PaperNotes is gone/banished/I banish you
- Super Mario steps into his vacated spot whenever possible
- Their arguments are suspiciously similar/interchangable
- They both trust editorial articles and Youtube videos more than scientific mumbo-jumbo published literature
- Reading comprehension remains a problem

There you are, now you're up to speed

[Buckaroo]

As I have always said, the claims from these left wing wackos are full of crap. All the data that they base global warming on is NOT based on science, but guesses and assumptions.

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../16/do1610.xml

[Warren Pease]

The Russians made an error. How does this make temperature data guesses and assumptions?

More on the matter: Mountains and molehills

The amount of simply made up stuff is also impressive - the GISS press release declaring the October the 'warmest ever'? Imaginary (GISS only puts out press releases on the temperature analysis at the end of the year). The headlines trumpeting this result? Non-existent. One clearly sees the relief that finally the grand conspiracy has been rumbled, that the mainstream media will get it's comeuppance, and that surely now, the powers that be will listen to those voices that had been crying in the wilderness.

Alas! none of this will come to pass. In this case, someone's programming error will be fixed and nothing will change except for the reporting of a single month's anomaly. No heads will roll, no congressional investigations will be launched, no politicians (with one possible exception) will take note. This will undoubtedly be disappointing to many, but they should comfort themselves with the thought that the chances of this error happening again has now been diminished. Which is good, right?

I think the fact that the process is so transparent effectively erodes any argument that the numbers are somehow cooked.

[Buckaroo]

Cooked alright, just like the weather station mentioned in ebuddy's post.

[Buckaroo]

Film-makers taking on 'global warming hysteria'...

...'Will do for Gore what 'Fahrenheit 9/11' did for Bush'

A new Irish film claims that climate change guru Al Gore is an alarmist and that those who think they are saving the planet are only hurting the poor

IF THE ADVANCE publicity is anything to go by, Not Evil Just Wrong will do for Al Gore what Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 did for George W Bush.

"This is the film Al Gore and Hollywood don't want you to see," declares the website for the latest work by film-makers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer. The site even features a big picture of Gore, with his lips in the photograph seemingly digitally enhanced to make them look like Heath Ledger's Joker from the latest Batman film.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...408678797.html

[Buckaroo]

By the way, great post ebuddy:

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

cop-out


Since it seems to be "experts" VS "laypeople", I thought I'd give the other junior detectives this forum a glimpse of what this "expertise" is founded on;


Yeah, you guessed it. This sensor sight is surrounded by asphalt. Friggin' brilliant! These experts are a cut above. Next?


Wait! Is that a 65Watt light bulb?!? I know, I shouldn't have to ask. We're on hallowed, expert ground. The instructions on "setting the thermometers" you can see in this pic is obviously for laypeople.


Say it isn't so!! A little fireside sensor reading?!? Interestingly, the tennis court and condos (out of pic to the right, there are more pics including the condos) were built in the early 80's. Here are some highly-precise, SuperExpert™ readings from that sensor sight;



We're all DOOMED!!! Oh wait, Louie could you put that fire out please?

[Chongo]

Here is a website that is surveying US Historical Climate Network stations across the US
http://www.surfacestations.org/
here is one in Tucson

About
What is the purpose of this website?

This website was created in response to the realization that very little physical site survey data exists for the entire United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) and Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN) surface station records worldwide.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You're behind the times. A quick recap:

- PaperNotes is gone/banished/I banish you

That's moronic. Your treatment of this subject is as if you're the last member of the Baader-Meinhof gang and still thinks it is 1972.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

That's moronic. Your treatment of this subject is as if you ... still thinks it is 1972.

So's your knowledge of the subject.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

So's your knowledge of the subject.

Get with the plan, Radicalboi. You're falling behind your comrades.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

What, no more opinion articles? Hey, I hear the editor of some newspaper somewhere thinks global warming is a crock, maybe you'd like to let us know that.

[Buckaroo]

It's going to be a cold winter. There goes that Global Warming scam.


http://www.accuweather.com/news-top-...h=11&year=2008

Fresh arctic air will spread over the East today, leading to more lake-effect snow downwind of the Great Lakes. Record lows will be challenged across the South tonight.

A reinforcing shot of chilly air is pouring across the eastern half of the nation in the wake of a cold front. The cold will keep high temperatures below freezing over the interior Northeast and 10 to 20 degrees below normal across the South today.