Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 28    Average: 3.5/5]
103 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 16061
Rating: 3.5
Category: Science
Date: 04/18/10 10:00 AM

103 Responses to Climate-Gate Scientists Largely Vindicated

  1. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 7:55 pm
    Link: Climate-Gate Scientists Largely Vindicated - Climate data not manipulated: British lawmakers say science sound, but want transparency.
  2. Profile photo of Zerocyde
    Zerocyde Male 18-29
    3258 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 10:07 am
    There never was a controversy. Just the ignorant being themselves.
  3. Profile photo of quaintness
    quaintness Male 13-17
    1086 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 10:11 am
    Thank goodness we can set this behind us and move on with science and out of partisan politics, right? (:

    ...right?....
  4. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 10:20 am
    Won`t stop the conservative gun-toting, gay-hating, SUV-driving, Bush-voting, healthcare-hating, God-fearing, evolution-denouncing rednecks from bleating how climate change is not happening, that it`s a government funded manufactured plot designed purely to steal their money...

    I can just picture them frothing at the mouth even now.
  5. Profile photo of TopperHey
    TopperHey Male 18-29
    1930 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 10:20 am
    There was never any meaningful controversy.
  6. Profile photo of a1butcher
    a1butcher Male 40-49
    4812 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 10:21 am
    Why does every scandal have to have "-GATE" tacked on the end of it.
    Damn you Nixon!!
  7. Profile photo of tylertooo
    tylertooo Male 40-49
    240 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 10:40 am
    Standard right wing fare. If you don`t have the facts, attack the messenger. sheesh...
  8. Profile photo of littlepete50
    littlepete50 Male 18-29
    1359 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 10:41 am
    University of East-Anglia..... that kind of sums it up.
  9. Profile photo of gorgack2000
    gorgack2000 Male 13-17
    4683 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 10:44 am
    Norwich! On MSNBC! Never thought I`d see the day...
  10. Profile photo of Monosandalos
    Monosandalos Male 30-39
    277 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 10:48 am
    "Hide the decline" was not an attempt to conceal data but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data, the committee concluded
    I`ve never heard of this expression even though I studied in the UK did lots of experiments as part of my degree.
    I wonder what the committee would say about "Hide the sausage"...
  11. Profile photo of KingDragon
    KingDragon Female 18-29
    159 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 10:58 am
    Lol. I love how there`s had to be an investigation to say "Global warming is really happening. Really. Yes! Really really. Now stop burning baby orangutan`s to fuel your air conditioner."
  12. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10443 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 11:06 am
    Boring! We`ve known climate change is occurring for years. All this article says is "the scientists aren`t dumb".

    A more useful article would be "Journalist confirms sky is blue"
  13. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 11:26 am
    All of you who think this isn`t significant have to realize there is a huge percentage of ignorant Americans who believe everything Glenn Beck says, and ACTUALLY BELIEVE 98% of climate scientists worldwide are perpetuating a massive conspiracy for the purpose of establishing a new world order.

    It would be laughable if not for the fact that the GOP (and their oil company backers) denies man has any role in global warming.

    Its as if conservatives in America chose to believe the tobacco companies scientists - who denied tobacco caused cancer - over the vast majority of scientists world-wide who said that tobacco does cause cancer.

    IT IS NOT JUST MISUNDERSTANDING SCIENCE. ITS ABOUT AN ACTUAL BELIEF THAT THERE IS A MASSIVE GLOBAL CONSPIRACY TO CREATE A ONE-WORLD, ANTI-CAPITALIST GOVERNMENT.

    They actually think Obama intends to "bankrupt" the country with his policies so that we become communists, and climate change is part of the delusion.
  14. Profile photo of Neagle
    Neagle Male 30-39
    1407 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 11:48 am
    I call BS on all of them. It is OK to say that they do not know the answers but, are studying the data and give a few hypothesis on what is happening. It is not OK to demand that one hypothesis stands true without being proven repeatedly and independently for the sake of political ideologist. Common sense should dictate that eliminating our rain forests and dumping known toxic chemicals are bad things and need to contained as much as possible. To say that that is the cause of global climate change a lone is ignorant.
  15. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 1:01 pm
    This won`t change the mind of the skeptics. They have their collective minds made up no matter what the science says. They`re cynically pessimistic skeptics. Just like the god heads who argue the meaning of the word "Theory" when it pertains to evolution.
  16. Profile photo of Boredered
    Boredered Male 18-29
    2508 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 1:13 pm
    Too little pictures, Did not read
  17. Profile photo of Tay-Dor
    Tay-Dor Male 40-49
    265 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 1:18 pm
    Science is all about skeptisim. You are supposed to question science until it is proven without a doubt.
  18. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    From the article:
    "Lawmakers stressed that their report — which was written after only a single day of oral testimony..."
    OH HECK! With evidence like that I totally believe in AGW now!!! Irrefutible! 110% Iron-clad!
    BTW:
    Neagle > goaliejerry
  19. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10443 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 1:47 pm
    All of you... have to realize there is a huge percentage of ignorant Americans who believe everything Glenn Beck says, and ACTUALLY BELIEVE 98% of climate scientists worldwide are perpetuating a massive conspiracy for the purpose of establishing a new world order.

    I`m more concerned with China than with dumbass redneck Republicans.

    To say that that is the cause of global climate change a lone is ignorant.

    No one is suggesting that. Deforestation though, is definitely a factor.
  20. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25405 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 1:51 pm
    Either yes or no! they will still say it exists for control of us!
  21. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 2:29 pm
    Of course they cleared their comrades. It`d be like letting the police investigate themselves, Which is why independent investigations are warranted.

    The Citizen Audit 21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F. Basically that means nearly half of the IPCC report was just `made up`.
  22. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 2:43 pm
    v I told you it wouldn`t change the mind of skeptics. v
  23. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 2:46 pm
    Of course they vindicated themselves.

    "Pay no attention to the documentary evidence! We have oral testimony from esteemed climatologists who say there is nothing to be concerned about. Nope. Nothing to see here. Now, move along and let us get about our anointed task of running your miserable lives for you, you poor, stupid, ignorant, slobs. You`re welcome."

    This global warmist cabal is nothing but a bunch of arrogant elitist pricks having a giant circle-jerk.
  24. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 5:21 pm
    Crackr:Of course they cleared their comrades.
    OldOllie:Of course they vindicated themselves.

    You evidently don`t know who the people undertaking the report are. They are government employees, not IPCC employees. It would be in their interest to show that the CRU was manipulating data - that`s what they`re paid to do.
    They have nothing to gain by exonerating fellow scientists. They would achieve far more personal fortune and reknown in the scientific community if they WERE able to disprove climate change science.
  25. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 6:51 pm
    v I told you it wouldn`t change the mind of TRUE BELIEVERS. v
    fify madest! You go AGW Climate Science! No need for stuff like evidence or proof, just publish what the "agreement" is and shout-down those who`d dare argue!
    vv @almightbob it was a ONE DAY hearing! Oral testamony means no evidence or documents! This was a speedy white-wash to try to sweep it under the rug before the British elections. There`s two more "probes" which might actually do something.
    @LazyMe484 Yes, that`s actually what AGW "science" is all about! Humans are the sole cause for global warming. Read the stuff from these guys who`re under investigation, it`s amazing! CO2 produced by humans is the ONLY reason the global temperatures are rising, except they`re NOT rising at all. Gotta "hide the decline" eh?
  26. Profile photo of Dragonlord
    Dragonlord Male 18-29
    734 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 8:01 pm
    I propose that everybody who wishes to state their opinion on this matter do the following:

    1) Get a degree in environmental sciences.
    2) Read all of the published, peer-reviewed reports on global warming.
    3) Read all of the several thousand climategate emails and related documents.

    Until then, do not consider yourselves well-informed on the matter.
  27. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3348 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 9:11 pm
    OldOllie, would you go to a gynacoligist to have your hemmorhoids treated? Why would you trust a meteorologist (a short term weather forcaster) to talk about global warming over a climatologist? (a long term weather forecaster.
    Most climatologists agree climate change is affected by man.
  28. Profile photo of seabass101dg
    seabass101dg Male 18-29
    478 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 9:20 pm
    This is from MSNBC... and from England... and a university.
    Is anyone really surprised?
  29. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 9:48 pm
    There`s two more "probes" which might actually do something.

    And I might win the lottery. Even though I don`t play it.

    The probes will come up with the same results and that will not change anyone`s mind. It`s like 9/11 conspiracists - no investigation will carry any weight with them unless it agrees with them. So an investigation is essentially a waste of time and money, even more so than buying lottery tickets. At least there`s a tiny chance of winning a big prize in a lottery.
  30. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 10:16 pm
    OldOllie:Of course they vindicated themselves...They are government employees...

    My point exactly, they`re ALL government employees. Nearly all climatologists are on the government tit one way or the other -- either as direct employees or as recipients of government grants or contracts. This whole global warming hoax is all about getting more power for the government at the expense of individual liberty.

  31. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 10:28 pm
    I propose that everybody who wishes to state their opinion on this matter do the following:

    1) Get a degree in environmental sciences.
    Academia has been pretty well purged of anyone who doesn`t buy into the global warmist orthodoxy. Skeptics are denied tenure and promotions, they can`t get published, and the can`t get grants. Bucking the system is professional suicide.

    2) Read all of the published, peer-reviewed reports on global warming.
    If you read the Climagegate emails, you would know that the peer-review process is totally corrupt. They give each other good reviews without even looking at original data, and they reject papers from skeptics. They even got an editor fired for publishing a skeptical paper.

    3) Read all of the several thousand climategate emails and related documents.
    Actually, if you did this first, you would see what a waste of time the first two items on your list are.
  32. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 10:45 pm
    OldOllie, would you go to a gynacoligist to have your hemmorhoids treated?
    No, I happen to like my hemorrhoids just the way they are, thank you.

    Why would you trust a meteorologist (a short term weather forcaster) to talk about global warming over a climatologist? (a long term weather forecaster.
    Well, for one thing, meteorologists are right more than they are wrong. Climatologists completely failed to predict the lack of warming over the past decade. When your theory fails to make accurate predictions, that proves your theory is wrong.

    Also, most meteorologists work in the private sector, while nearly all climatologists are on the govt. tit and stand to gain from promotions, grants, contracts, stipends, and other perqs if they toe the line of global warmist orthodoxy. And since they`re also almost all libs, it fits their political agenda to raise taxes and give more power to the govt. at the expense of individual liberty.
  33. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 11:20 pm
    My point exactly, they`re ALL government employees. Nearly all climatologists are on the government tit one way or the other - either as direct employees or as recipients of government grants or contracts.
    Sorry Ollie, time to call you out on your American conservative bullsh*t. I`ve held my tongue for too long.
  34. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 11:20 pm
    The IPCC is an international body (that`s what the "I" stands for, as a clue). It`s made up of all the countries around the world. And they ALL agree that Climate Change is real and that human activity is a factor. When you speak of government, you mean the US government. The world is a big place. Bigger than America, as hard as that is to imagine.

    Let`s examine that. China is building dirty coal-fired power plants at the rate of one per week. Their sister, Brazil, is chopping down rainforests to feed western demand at the rate of hundreds of square miles per week.

    These countries would love nothing more than for Global Warming to "go away". They could keep doing what they`re doing without international embarrassment or pressure. They would LOVE there to be no climate change. Yet these countries are in complete agreement that the planet is being gently f*cked. By climate change, in large part due to human activity.
  35. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    Surely if there was anyone who should deny that man-made climate change it should be these guys, yet they`re unanimously holding their hands up and saying "Yep, it`s a big deal. We need to fix this, even though it`s going to hurt our economy. Big-time".

    I`m stunned, amazed, and a bit saddened that the only people around the world who are denying this scientific reality of climate change are middle-class conservative Americans. Well, not that surprised. The Creation Museum springs to mind.

    Guys, the world doesn`t end at America`s borders. Please, please, listen to the international scientific community. There is no conspiracy here beyond what you`re hearing in your own head. Consider this a Plea to Reason, before it`s too late...
  36. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 11:24 pm
    Ollie - I bet you also think the US Government is secretly seeding the atmosphere with chemicals to reflect sunlight to cool the earth, called "chemtrails." LOOK! Some plane`s vapor trails disappear in a few minutes, while others last longer! Must be a conspiracy! It couldn`t be differing temperatures and humidity levels, it MUST be a global UN conspiracy.

    Also, weather forecasters need only a Bachelor`s degree. Call me a liberal, but I`ll trust the opinions of those with PhDs from Oxford who have spent decades studying the subject over the dude with a Bachelor`s degree from state college.

    NASA SAYS MARCH 2010 HAD THE HIGHEST OCEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURES SINCE RECORDING BEGAN IN 1880.

    They must be lying, however, because it really snowed on the East Coast this Winter! I mean, did you see all that snow? Ha, global warming, right...*sigh*
  37. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 11:26 pm
    I propose that everybody who wishes to state their opinion on this matter do the following:

    1) Get a degree in environmental sciences.
    I have two. My first is a First Class Honours in Earth Science, the second is a PhD in same. Genuine. And I`m saying climate change is real and anthropogenic. It`s real. Is anyone listening to me yet, or am I less qualified than others here to comment on such matters?

    p.s. sorry for being an ass about this, but this is important.
  38. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 11:32 pm
    And as Davy rightly alludes too, guess who REALLY would like Global Warming to go away as a political issue? Oil and Coal companies. Guess which political party they overwhelmingly support?

    Conservatives say "liberal scientists just want to raise taxes, so they must be making it up." Oil companies say "damn, science shows our emissions to be harmful. I hope they don`t raise our taxes, lets confuse people about global warming and convince them its all a worldwide scam. Most of them don`t even have a college level education, so it will be easy to confuse them. Just talk about "elites" and how bad they are, people hate those types anyways."

    What really blows my mind is how resistance to climate change science widely emanates from AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES. Yet for all of their concern over government power, they fail to appreciate the incredibility powerful corporate interests funding climate change denialists and Republicans.
  39. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 11:38 pm
    It just blows my mind that when people are confronted by the fact that 98% of people who study the subject for a living agree that Climate Change is man-made, they jump to the absurd conclusion that ALL OF THEM ARE IN A MASSIVE WORLDWIDE CONSPIRACY, the goal of which is too (*fill in the blank with absurd idea on a global scale*), rather than the far more reasonable conclusion that the science is sound.

    Occam`s razor says the simplest answer is most likely correct. Which is simpler: that repeated science experiments have conclusively shown a connection between harmful emissions and global warming, or that 100s of thousands of scientists from across the globe are coordinating a conspiracy to fabricate the science, and among those 100s of thousands not one has slipped and revealed evidence of the plot.

    No, for the denialists, lack of evidence of the conspiracy IS EVIDENCE THE CONSPIRACY IS WORKING.
  40. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 11:44 pm
    Why do conservatives place so much more trust in unaccountable global corporations, whose sole existence is driven by making money, and who owe no duty to anyone but shareholders, than governments run by elected officials? Governments actually provide services for people, like roads, cops, sewers. Corporations only make cash. Why are they more worthy of trust?
  41. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 11:49 pm
    Davy said: "I`m stunned, amazed, and a bit saddened that the only people around the world who are denying this scientific reality of climate change are middle-class conservative Americans."

    This deserves stressing. It is true, documented, and well known. The only significant group of people in the world who raise such a fuss about global warming, and who just bury their heads in the sand when confronted with solid science, are American Conservatives.
  42. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 12:00 am



    FAKE!





    FAKE!




    FAKE!
  43. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 12:19 am
    Goalie, it`s a lost cause I`m afraid, although your effort is noble. Actual peer-reviewed scientific data doesn`t cut it these days. Neither do photographs, the last bastion of reality.

    The scientific data`s all been falsified by the commie pinko junkets who want to establish a New World Order, and your pics of melting ice-caps are clearly photoshopped.

    *sigh* I`m glad these old dinosaurs are in the decline. Not everything is a conspiracy, guys. Sometimes science just comes together and tells you that your planet is f*cked.

    I`m a dad. I`m no hippy, but I want my daughter to see the same planet I did. There`s no conspiracy. It`s just being responsible for what you use. Surely there`s nothing wrong with that.
  44. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 2:11 am
    So...it`s a conspiracy of the vast majority of people who know anything about the subject, yet somehow they all keep the secret.

    Oh yeah, that`s so plausible. Do you have any idea how much scientists argue with each other? It`s pretty much part of the job.

    So...the object of the conspiracy is to increase taxes and increase government power over the people.

    Since when has the government needed another excuse for that? It wouldn`t be worth a massive conspiracy, because they always fail. Any conspiracy with more than a handful of people is a big risk.

    I live in the UK. We get taxed for everything and sometimes we get taxed on the taxes too (no joke, e.g. petrol is taxed twice and then the taxes are taxed). We live under surveillance, have no right to privacy and the authorities are devoted to databases of everything on everyone. They don`t need AGW as an excuse and aren`t using it as one.
  45. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 2:16 am
    I`m not joking about the petrol, by the way. ~70% of the retail cost here is tax. You have value added tax on the price, then fuel tax, then calue added tax on the fuel tax. Nothing to do with global warming - the government taxes it that much because they can get away with it. What are motorists going to do - use a horse and cart instead? Voting won`t change it - all the parties would tax it that much, because they can.
  46. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8309 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 4:13 am
    Don`t tell me there are STILL some morons who deny global warming is real? The last time I saw a sheet of ice covering the horse`s trough was 20 years ago. 10 years prior to that, it happened every winter. The last time it snowed in this town was 33 years ago. Now it only gets a mild frost about 1 month of the year. The bridge pylon my first GF and I used to sit on and make out, is now underwater. And there`s almost no such thing as alpine gumtree here anymore, it died out over the last 25 years or so. Open your frakkin` mind.
  47. Profile photo of APJ311
    APJ311 Male 13-17
    749 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 4:45 am
    IAB, your timing couldn`t have been worse. I honestly just finished my Global Warming coursework on Friday. I`d used this to argue that Global Warming might not be true and now it`s worthless. If I get marked down, I`m gonna yell at my computer so much....;D
  48. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 5:09 am
    Global temperature has been trending downward since 2000. The sun has more of an effect on climate than CO2, In fact CO2 has a 5-10% effect at most. The Arctic ice grew this past winter, Al Gore predicted it would disappear completely. This Iceland volcanic activity will lower temperatures even further. The climategate e-mails were damning and the data was clearly manipulated.

    Keep clinging to AGW, It`s going down like the Titanic.
  49. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 5:37 am
    As CrakrJak says, and I said before, the world may indeed be warming, but it`s NOT %100 due to human activity!
    So pointing to warming trends and saying See! Humans did this! Lets destroy the world`s economy!" is a fake arguement.




    With bonus quote from Jones!
  50. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 5:42 am
    Sorry, pictures are tiny. Save them and look at them that way, eh?
    I don`t need a PHD to know bullpoop when I see it, AGW is a lie, plain and simple.
    Global Warming? Probably happening, but it`s pushed by the same folks who push AGW, so what does that do for their credibility?
    Also what can we do about the centuries-long warming & cooling trends? Nada.
  51. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8309 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 6:27 am
    Just a quickie insertion before going to bed (oooh, don`t ya love those... not THOSE before-bed quick insertions, I mean my last-minute IAB comments you dirty-minded...) anyway, tonight`s News, India sweltering under hottest temperatures in over 50 years and they`re dying like flies. This is a country where 120F isn`t unusual. But keep on insisting temperatures are going down since 2000, guys, even though they are in fact going UP by .15C per decade. Sure 2008 was cooler than 2000, but it was still the 10th hottest year in recorded history. Stop looking at `selected` facts only.
  52. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8309 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 6:30 am
    And if its graphs you want, check these out.
  53. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 8:43 am
    Ooooo...MSNBC vindicates Climate-Gate - that`s credible. That`s like believing it when Fox News says Obama is the Anti-Christ.
  54. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 10:54 am
    Well Lionhart, most of those seem to be from the IPCC or it`s members, which just MIGHT be biased, eh?
    Graph #6 shows current temperature drops nicely.
    Graphs 10 & 11, one shows rainfall (in Australia) is UP, the other DOWN, lolz!
    And most graphics you linked to show clearly that things go up, things go down. AGW is not the only source of climate change.
  55. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 4:33 pm
    It`s ludicrous to think that scientists conspired with world governments to defraud all mankind at the behest of their mastermind Al Gore.
    It`s much more plausible to assume that 150yrs of pumping carbon into our atmospohere might have a detrimental effect to our planet.
    So I call you deniers out on your logic. What scientist leads your movement? What are his/her credentials? Who do they work for?
    I get the impression that the majority of deniers allow their politics and religion to cloud their common sense.
  56. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 5:55 pm
    I think the earth is resilient enough deal with our carbon output.

    It costs us more to be green. The technology is not cost efficient enough for widespread use. Most people cannot afford to be green.

    It`s called climate change for a reason. They changed the name from Global Warming, because it is not a man-made occurrence.
  57. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8309 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 6:25 pm
    5Cats, they changed the name from global warming to climate change precisely because of the confusion you, and millions of others, are under.

    Global warming ALSO MEANS THINGS GET DAMN COLD. Its not the warmer days that are the disaster, its the upsetting of the global ecobalance, creating MORE and MORE EXTREME weather variations - ice and snow, rain and storms as well as hot baking temperatures. Once the Atlantic Ocean Conveyor gets rooted, for instance, by an increase of 5C or so, then all of Europe becomes an ice-age frozen tundra. As a result of global warming. Those cooler days, with unusually high rain fall, are ALSO part of the global warming problem, and just as disastrous.
  58. Profile photo of Genocyde
    Genocyde Male 30-39
    712 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 8:58 pm
    It`s much more plausible to assume that 150yrs of pumping carbon into our atmospohere might have a detrimental effect to our planet.
    ::So I call you deniers out on your logic.::

    *yawn*

    ::What scientist leads your movement?::

    It`s pretty simple to understand that in this nation, when you make a claim, you bear the burden of proof. Since your position has yet to be proven...

    ::I get the impression that the majority of deniers allow their politics and religion to cloud their common sense.::

    So Al Gore says YOU must reduce YOUR carbon emissions by %80 and it`s all good. Al Gore: Politician...right? Based his whole "Truth" on a theory issued by Roger Revelle who has state the following:

    Revelle: I estimate that the total increase over the past hundred years has been about 21 percent. But whether the increase will lead to a significant rise in global temperature, we can`t absolutely say.

    One more thing ...p
  59. Profile photo of Genocyde
    Genocyde Male 30-39
    712 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 9:00 pm
    plants tend to breathe CO2 and exhale O2. Kind of an even trade.

    I agree that climate change is occurring but it`s not made by us and it`s not going to be stopped by anything we do. We pretty much have two options; adapt or die.

  60. Profile photo of Genocyde
    Genocyde Male 30-39
    712 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 9:04 pm
    ::The last time I saw a sheet of ice covering the horse`s trough was 20 years ago. 10 years prior to that, it happened every winter. The last time it snowed in this town was 33 years ago. Now it only gets a mild frost about 1 month of the year. The bridge pylon my first GF and I used to sit on and make out, is now underwater. And there`s almost no such thing as alpine gumtree here anymore, it died out over the last 25 years or so. Open your frakkin` mind.::

    So what you`re saying is that the entire basis for the credibility of the argument is that my mind should change because of evidence that`s anecdotal at best?
  61. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 10:32 pm
    So what you`re saying is that the entire basis for the credibility of the argument is that my mind should change because of evidence that`s anecdotal at best?
    Nah, I`ll base it on actual globally peer-reviewed scientific data, such as this. NASA Goddard Institute.



    Incidentally, the green line is the "cooling trend" that others in this thread have alluded to. That downward trend works, it really does. As long as you pick the years and ignore all the other data. From 1998 (unusually hot year) to 2008 (unusually cold year), yep, there`s definitely a downward trend.

    Yet, even among all the armchair PhDs in this thread (as I said before, I have an actual one, in earth science) surely it doesn`t take a scientist to spot the trend of the graph. Surely.
  62. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 10:32 pm
    p.s. I`m a petroleum exploration geologist working for a multinational oil company. I make my living off this sh*t. If I of all people am saying climate change is real and in large part man-made, a red flag should go up somewhere in some American conservative minds. Surely.
  63. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 10:44 pm
    Actual peer-reviewed scientific data doesn`t cut it these days.
    Not the way THESE ass-clowns do it.

    I`m a dad. I`m no hippy, but I want my daughter to see the same planet I did. There`s no conspiracy. It`s just being responsible for what you use. Surely there`s nothing wrong with that.
    You seem duly concerned about leaving your daughter a world that`s a degree or two warmer, but it doesn`t seem to bother you to leave her in poverty under the crushing weight of $100 trillion in debt just to delay the inevitable by a few years.
  64. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 10:44 pm
    Regarding your degrees, far be it from me to question the QUANTITY of your education. I wonder, though, about the QUALITY. How many of your professors were global warming skeptics? I would wager there wasn`t a single one. You probably believe you got a thorough and comprehensive education in that area, when more likely you got nothing but a one-sided indoctrination. (Of course, you coud prove me wrong. If you really had a global warming skeptic professor, just post a link to one of his published articles.)
  65. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 10:45 pm
    (China and India) are in complete agreement that the planet is being gently f*cked. By climate change...
    India pulled out of the IPCC in Feb. because they “cannot rely” on them for honest and credible information. And as to China, forget what they say and watch what they do. They map pay lip service to AGW, but they`re still building coal-fired power plants at the rate of one a week.
  66. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 10:46 pm
    Wow, it looks like I really started a $#!+storm here! Where to start...

    Ah...the IPCC. Isn`t that a UN outfit? I seem to recall another UN creation: Oil for Food. As you may recall, that turned out to be the biggest corruption scandal in the history of the world, making the UN the most corrupt organization in the history of the world. The credibility of the IPCC is less than zero, i.e., whatever they say, it`s more likely than not they`re lying.
  67. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 11:36 pm
    Regarding your degrees, far be it from me to question the QUANTITY of your education. I wonder, though, about the QUALITY. How many of your professors were global warming skeptics?
    Borderline offensive, but I`ll ignore that for now. My first degree was at Queen`s University, Belfast. My Doctorate was at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. Since then I`ve taught courses on geoscience at Cambridge and Oxford. I`m a published author 12 times, in globally-respected scientific peer-reviewed journals. I now work for Shell Oil, as a prominent member of their Frontier Exploration Division.

    You`re right though, I didn`t have any profs, nor do I have any colleagues, that are climate change skeptics.

    Now, let me ask you Ollie: what does that tell you?
  68. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 1:32 am
    [quote">It`s ludicrous to think that scientists conspired with world governments to defraud all mankind at the behest of their mastermind Al Gore.[/quote">

    These same scientists were equally agreed that in the 1940`s there would be a new ice age (Global cooling), Then in the 50`s and 60`s they claimed The earth was warming (Global Warming), After that in 1977 `Global Cooling` came back into favor. In the late nineties we seen `Global Warming`, Again. Since 2000 the temperatures have dropped, We`ve had some very cold winters the past two years. And a surprising lack of sunspots that seems to explain temperature change closer than CO2 - Sunspots and Global Warming
  69. Profile photo of aseirinn
    aseirinn Male 70 & Over
    877 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 2:29 am
    CrakrJak[quote">It`s ludicrous to think that scientists conspired with world governments to defraud all mankind at the behest of their mastermind Al Gore.[/quote">

    These same scientists were equally agreed that in the 1940`s there would be a new ice age (Global cooling), Then in the 50`s and 60`s they claimed The earth was warming (Global Warming), After that in 1977 `Global Cooling` came back into favor. In the late nineties we seen `Global Warming`, Again. Since 2000 the temperatures have dropped, We`ve had some very cold winters the past two years. And a surprising lack of sunspots that seems to explain temperature change closer than CO2 - Sunspots and Global Warming


    Weather the earth is cooling or warmming is NOT the issue...Its , is mans activity causing it?...the answer in mho is no!...Al gores propaganda doc has since been debunked...But he`s already made a fortune from it, but he IS a business man not a politican...
  70. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 4:19 am
    That would be a good argument, aseirinn, if the following things were true:

    i) All scientists today were all the scientists in the 1940s. You explicitly state that to be true. Surely you can`t really believe it. Do you think all scientists are androids built from alien technology in the 1940s?

    ii) Any of the claims you made about scientific positions about climate change were true. Mass media headlines are not a universal scientific position. Not even from alien androids.

    Since neither of those conditions are met, your agument is thoroughly debunked.
  71. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 5:56 am
    Forgive me CrakrJak if I laugh at your credentials. You have a habit of not believing science. You don`t even believe in evolution. Why would you believe anything that doesn`t involve an invisible man in the sky?
  72. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 8:03 am
    Why would you believe anything that doesn`t involve an invisible man in the sky?

    Both condescending and insulting, Again.

    Insults ARE the last refuge of the out argued. You can`t refute the science you so dearly cherish as sacred, So you insult me instead.
  73. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 8:09 am
    Do you think all scientists are androids built from alien technology in the 1940s?

    You know what I meant and twisted it, Par for the course sir. These are same KIND of scientists. Is that better ?

    Mass media headlines are not a universal scientific position.

    They were more than just headlines, It was taught in schools then, As irrefutable fact, Just as it is now.
  74. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 8:18 am
    You have no credibility to doubt science. There I found a way to say it without insulting your fragile sensibilities.
  75. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 8:39 am
    madest: Your snide insults lost you any credibility you thought you had.
  76. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 9:21 am
    madest hasn`t lost any credibility. Often ridicule is the only way to deal with people who have a problem accepting reality. madest has a mountain of evidence on his side, you have a a 2,000 year old book, a couple educated shills, Fox News, and a few weather anomalies.
  77. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 9:48 am
    [quote">Now, let me ask you Ollie: what does that tell you?[/quote">

    It tells me that your education in this area was actually incomplete, biased, one-sided political indoctrination. I think you have a good case to sue for negligence if not outright fraud.

    Look, we`re not going to settle this debate in 950-character blurbs. If you have some time, though, you might check out this lecture by Lord Christopher Monckton. He does a pretty fair job of debunking many of the major claims of the global warming alarmists.
  78. Profile photo of Kougaiji
    Kougaiji Male 18-29
    604 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 10:39 am
    davymind wins. next link.
  79. Profile photo of Genocyde
    Genocyde Male 30-39
    712 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 12:22 pm
    ::Yet, even among all the armchair PhDs in this thread (as I said before, I have an actual one, in earth science) surely it doesn`t take a scientist to spot the trend of the graph. Surely.::

    Okay, but here`s the thing...you still haven`t shown that this is caused by us and you also haven`t shown that this "Warming And Cooling At The Same Time" trend is exclusive of nature in a cycle.

    The point is that the whole basis for the argument is to get us to pay taxes over our "carbon footprint" without first proving that we`re the cause to the exclusion of all else and expecting that we`ll just go along with it.

    Would you pay money to a church because the clergy there claimed that their deity needed it more than you?
  80. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 12:32 pm
    v Why does someone who will never believe the evidence need proof? You`re being cynical by merely asking for proof. The proof is there you just refuse to read it or believe it. v
  81. Profile photo of Genocyde
    Genocyde Male 30-39
    712 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
    ::Why does someone who will never believe the evidence need proof? You`re being cynical by merely asking for proof. The proof is there you just refuse to read it or believe it.::

    Because the claim is made that this is humankind`s fault and we will pay for it in taxes. I have a right to see how my money will offset the effects of this climate change but those making the claim must prove it. Simple as that. You make the claim, you bear burden of proof. If the burden is too much, don`t make the claim.
  82. Profile photo of Genocyde
    Genocyde Male 30-39
    712 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 1:37 pm
    Besides, madest, if it`s so scientific, I simply won`t be asked to go on blind faith. You can be angry about it all you want but I`m not giving anything out of my pocket without a full account. If you`d like to, be my guest and you have my complete support but I`m not going to do it until I see it. You`ll deal with it, I`m sure.
  83. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 1:50 pm
    How about this smart guy. You prove that human activities have no impact on our atmosphere. The proof that we do has been peer reviewed and accepted. What do you got?
  84. Profile photo of Genocyde
    Genocyde Male 30-39
    712 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 2:38 pm
    ::How about this smart guy.You prove that human activities have no impact on our atmosphere.::

    Prove first that I said the words human activity has no impact on our atmosphere.

    ::The proof that we do has been peer reviewed and accepted.::

    Then you`ll have no problem producing such peer reviewed and accepted "proof"

    ::What do you got?::

    No new taxes to impose. You?
  85. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 3:29 pm
    You know what I meant and twisted it, Par for the course sir.

    I replied to someone else, not you. I even named them in my reply.

    In your desperation to insult me, you have succeeded only in making yourself look bad.
  86. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 7:29 pm
    you might check out this lecture by Lord Christopher Monckton.
    As a professional scientist, it`s generally good practice to ascertain the scientific credentials of one espousing a theory, especially if that theory flies in the face of the vast amount of mainstream science. If that person`s scientific credentials are sound, then maybe they`re worth listening to, which can makea fundamental step-change in the way we think of science. This is how science works.

    Monckton`s qualifications? A BA in Classics, and an MA in Journalism. Now, you`ll forgive me if I take the word of thousands of PhD Climatologists over a media hack with absolutely zero education in science. Must try harder, Ollie, if you want people to take you seriously.
  87. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 10:22 pm
    Davy, you disappoint me. What difference does it make what his qualifications are? He isn`t espousing any theory; he`s presenting facts and data. Apparently you can`t refute them, so like a typical liberal, you attack him personally. Pretty sad...
  88. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 8:23 am
    v Without qualifications he`s just an OldOllie spittin misinformation to bolster his uneducated position. v
  89. Profile photo of Genocyde
    Genocyde Male 30-39
    712 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 10:58 am
    Ollie, I have to agree with one point that Davy made. Monckton doesn`t specifically have any types of degrees in the realm of science but, rest assured, the insults won`t stop because they feel that they`re being crushed under the burden of proof.
  90. Profile photo of Genocyde
    Genocyde Male 30-39
    712 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 10:59 am
    v Without qualifications he`s just an OldOllie spittin misinformation to bolster his uneducated position. v

    Pot, meet kettle?
  91. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 12:00 pm
    [quote">Davy, you disappoint me. What difference does it make what his qualifications are? [/quote">
    It makes a great deal of difference what his qualifications are. If I espoused that I had discovered a cure for AIDS, or cold fusion, or everlasting life, with no background in science whatsoever, then I`d be debunked as a snake-oil salesman at best, or at worst, a complete kook.

    Ironically enough, Monckton has been spouting recently that he HAS DISCOVERED A CURE FOR AIDS, and also multiple sclerosis, the flu, and even the common cold. I mean really, you couldn`t make this stuff up.

    So, forgive me if I call into question his credibility as a scientist. If you interpret that as a cheap personal insult to him, then that`s your prerogative.
  92. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 3:41 pm
    If I espoused that I had discovered a cure for AIDS, or cold fusion, or everlasting life, with no background in science whatsoever, then I`d be debunked as a snake-oil salesman at best, or at worst, a complete kook.

    If you had data to back up your claim, I wouldn`t give a rat`s ass about your credentials. Facts speak for themselves.

    You are guilty of a rhetorical fallacy that would get you kicked out of a high school debate tournament, the appeal to authority. "My sources have better credentials than yours; therefore, they are more credible. I don`t need to offer evidence to support my position, nor do I need to even consider yours."

    Denying factual evidence without refuting the evidence itself but rather by attempting to discredit the person presenting that evidence doesn`t carry any sway with me. If that`s the best you have to offer, this argument is over.
  93. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 7:42 pm
    Davymid:
    ...globally-respected scientific peer-reviewed journals.
    You`re right though, I didn`t have any profs, nor do I have any colleagues, that are climate change skeptics... what does that tell you?
    #1 You`re published in peer-reviewed journals? Good on ya mate! Better than the IPCC (I submitted content on how fully 1/3 of their "proof" was not peer-reviewed at all)
    #2 It tells me that you recieved a one-sided biased "education" and no wonder you swallow the kool-aid!
    Gee Mom! All my friends believe in AGW!
  94. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 7:47 pm
    @Genocyde:
    Pot, meet kettle?
    Laugh My BUM Off!
    I just used that phrase on madest on another thread!!!
    At least he`s consistant... -ly stupid eh?
  95. Profile photo of Genocyde
    Genocyde Male 30-39
    712 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 8:08 pm
    Well 5Cats, here`s the problem. I`m not going to call him names at all. I won`t stoop to personal attacks. Attacks on his behavior and his points are fair game.

    See, here`s what I find problematic. In fewer words, he`s dictating to me that I should not, for any reason whatsoever doubt nor should I question alleged "manmade" Climate change. He also lists himself as an atheist. By and large, most atheists pride themselves on being able to prove their claims via scientific method but he`s actually asking me to take "manmade" climate change on faith and pay a tax accordingly. Isn`t this what atheism takes a stance against when it comes to organized religion?

    The difference here is that when I go to Church, they do ask for money but it`s up to me to give it. With this "manmade" climate change, I`m not being asked, it`s mandatory.
  96. Profile photo of Genocyde
    Genocyde Male 30-39
    712 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 8:13 pm
    I can concede that climate change is occurring as I have before. I also support new technologies that will conserve our resources and improve our quality of life while making us less parasitic in nature but I refuse to pay out of pocket to some organization if I have no guarantee that the change will be stopped.

    All I`m asking is simply this. If it`s humankind`s fault that the climate is changing, simply prove it. Prove that the climb in temperature is the end result of our industrialization to the exclusion of all other causes/cycles and do the one thing The Scientific Method prides itself on...reproduce it. Quit trying to woo me with the environmental equivalent of Pascal`s Wager.
  97. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 8:30 pm
    vv @Genocyde Exactly! Your 2 posts make more sense than all the AGW non-sense IAB has ever seen :)
    I wrote madest (and several others, StarDagger!) off as mindless trolls a while back. Sad eh?
    I`ll re-link CrakrJak`s terrific finding of a non-AGW arguement: Here it is!
    And I await Davymid`s explaination of how the Midevil Warming Period was caused by human CO2...
    And I guess the little ice age was when the midevil greenies reduced their CO2 output by 80% eh??
    Also Excellent: Sunspot Cam!
    Hint: black spots = hot, notice the COMPLETE LACK of them?
  98. Profile photo of Genocyde
    Genocyde Male 30-39
    712 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 9:38 pm
    Well, like I said before, 5C, I`m all about different technologies that make us less parasitic. Combine solar power, Geothermic and even wind depending on the area in which you live with LED lights to replace the incandescents we`re currently using and you`ve solved the energy "crisis" in part.

    For that matter, start brewing ethyl alcohol and you have a good feul source that will stretch the hell out of our current oil supply.

    I`m pretty sure that if the climate change is our fault, that would be a good start towards reversing the damage IF it can even be reversed but we first must establish without question or controversy that it`s our fault. Even if it isn`t, I`m all for the technology just for the cost efficiency alone.

    But in order to be taxed, nah. Not without the proof.
  99. Profile photo of Genocyde
    Genocyde Male 30-39
    712 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 9:39 pm
    That video was pretty good, BTW. I`m going to have a look at some of the others later on when I get a moment.
  100. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 10:21 pm
    *Sigh*

    "Denying factual evidence without refuting the evidence itself but rather by attempting to discredit the person presenting that evidence doesn`t carry any sway with me. If that`s the best you have to offer, this argument is over."

    Alright. I`ll pick up on ONE of his claims. Bear in mind that he doesn`t have any different data than the rest of the scientific community, he`s not privy to some secret hidden knowledge, it`s all about how one INTERPRETS those data. Which is where scientific training, as much as you would like to believe otherwise, is entirely relevant.

    So on to pick one point in particular:
  101. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 10:23 pm
    Monckton states that Global Warming is false as there has been a "global cooling" trend over the last 10 years. That`s actually true, if you pick your data carefully enough. From NASA`s Goddard Institute (sorry for repost, but clearly this isn`t getting through)



    See the little green line? Global Cooling! How carefully do you have to pick your dots to make “global cooling” appear? Very carefully indeed. This line connects 1998 and 2008. But if you connect 1998 and 2007, you’ll get a flat line. And if you go back to 1997, you get global warming all over again. 1998 is a very important year for global warming denial, since it is an outlier and therefore allows all sorts of line drawing that wouldn’t otherwise be possible. But no matter how many little green lines you draw, you just can’t counter the larger trend of global warming.
  102. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 10:30 pm
    I’m not just saying that, either. The Associated Press just finished conducting an interesting test in which they gave global temperature trend data to four different statisticians. In order to remove the possibility of biased judging, the AP didn’t tell the statisticians it was temperature data; they removed temperature unit labels, just leaving the numbers themselves in a trend over time. The results of this “blind” analysis?

    "Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880... If you look at the data and cherry pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect", said John Grego, Professor of Statistics at the U of South Carolina. "It is deceptive to say there is Global Cooling".
  103. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    April 21, 2010 at 10:36 pm
    I won`t bother going into his lack of geological understanding of volcanogenic feedback systems in "snowball earth" conditions in geological past, or the phenomenal rate of climate change since the industrial revolution which is unprecidented in earth`s geological history. I`ll even brush over his pointing to the AREAL EXTENT of the north polar ice-cap as being relatively constant over the last few years, while completely ignoring the THICKNESS and therefore overall volume of ice at the pole, which is decreasing precipititously.

    Anyways, this thread is dead. See you guys in the next debate.

Leave a Reply