Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You

See? Another ice age cultist makes his ice age prediction. They never learn. Failing at their prediction for 40 years running doesn't deter them at all. They have faith that the Holy Ice Age _will_ arrive, and nothing can shake that faith. That's why they get so upset and irrational when they see the plots of ice extent declining -- they consider such data to be heresy against their icy gods.

 

You should apologize before iamanonman for calling him a religious nut, while being no differenet from him.

He is more fan because , at least he somewhat reciprocates, while you pay no attention to objection and talk to yourself.

You do believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster and all other fairly tales.

Carry on with your beliefs.

 

Writing in all caps doesn't make me wrong and you correct.

You can respond by immersing yourself you in the academic literature and learning the jargon of the field.

I've never claimed that the definition of "anomaly" as used in the context of that chart means "outside natural deviation". That is your definition. And it is wrong. That is what I'm trying to tell. You're having a hard time interpreting the chart because you use a different definition of "anomaly" than the experts in the field.

Instead of beating around bush why don't just come right out and spell it out for me. Again, what strawman am I building?

I've never claimed that chart is filtering actual data because it's not. You need to reread that paragraph you based this comment off again...carefully this time.

I say it because it's true. I even gave you the link to download the data so that you can see for yourself without taking my word for it. I trust that you took the opportunity right?

I'm not claiming that anything is filtered. The process of "standardizing" does not filter anything. You can "standardize" anything whether it be actual observations or predictions. In this case the dataset only includes actual observations. And it happens to include ALL of them. Nothing has been filtered or misrepresented. The chart is clearly labeled and the data from which it is created publicly and freely available. No one, except maybe you, has an issue with it. This includes countless experts that are far smarter than you or I.

What specifically about the chart is deceptive? Are you thinking that presenting the data as standardized anomalies is the deceptive part? If so which step do you think is deceptive? The "anomalizing" step? Or the "standardizing" step? I'm guessing it has to be the later because sans the "standardizing" step the chart looks exactly the same regardless of whether the data is presented with or without "anomalizing". So if it's the "standardizing" step you dislike then why do you think it's deceptive in this particular case? Be specific. This is your opportunity to present your case.

I'm trying to engage in a discussion. You are certainly free to ask me any questions you want.

What Antarctic growth? You just told me the data which shows Antarctic growth prior to 2015 is deceptive and false evidence. So that begs the question...how do you know sea ice has been increasing at the south pole if you don't have any reliable evidence to base that claim off of?

 

Can you point me to this study?

What insights can you bring from the last 450,000 years and last 5 million years to explain the warming we observe since WWII?

We should expect further cooling? What do you base that hypothesis on? And which datasets can you present to me that back up your claim?

Note, deniers have been predicting cooling for decades now and they keep getting it wrong. The reason they keep getting it wrong is because their predictions are based ideologies and conspiracy theories instead of hard science. So I'm not going to hold my breath or anything waiting for this theory of yours that can simultaneously explain both past AND present climate change.

 

Err you deny the mini ice age??? DO you deny the theory of the Thermocline Ocean Currents halting was the commencement of the mini ice age??? I am not sure what you’re trying to suggest here. Maybe your trying to suggest that since I consider all the data this somehow justifies the use of fabricated evidence to support your stance.

Do you think I am predicting an ice age not a scorching of the planet??? I simply point out that all the evidence shows a downward trend or do you object to that science??? Frankly, I am little perplexed at to what you think is really happening on the planet, or do you need the IPCC to tell you what to think???

What a stupid comment, since I have a different veiw to you, your fraud is justified.

 

I am not religious at all. I am simply following the data. If believing the climate is changing is being religious then I do wonder what hole you're hiding in. Since every day the climate does something different, then simply denying is pretty stupid.


Now of course, the difference between me and Iamaninman is that I am not blindly following the belief that man is the custodian of this planet. I am not so arrogant as to believe man is capable to manipulate nature to man’s advantage. I don’t take it on faith that man is doing anything to the climate as Iamaninman or others who wish to continue to berate me into believing what they want…

 

Simple google search will give you what you want OR you could go to the last IPCC report where they explain the problems with inclusion in modelling.

I have already presented previously the studies I examine on this forum, I don't simply run around every time somebody wants to argue the exclusion method as some sort of scientific breakthrough.

I don’t care if you believe or not after all I am not presenting my opinion as fact as you are attempting.

same as the scientific community of the cyclic nature of climate, or do you deny that it is cyclic???

I am not predicting anything, I simply observed far greater data set than narrowing to an acceptable level and considering the overall observations of temperature decline and the cyclic nature of the climate then it is pretty safe to assume the climate will eventually cool.

BUT this is the problem isn’t it??? You demand I believe the climate is rapidly climbing so fast that man will perish in a mass extinctions event of scorched earth policy???

Now for the second time you want to claim somebody is a denier because he doesn’t share your belief. I would note that this entire climate change science came from the belief of the next ice age, and then it was global warming. Now, since the climate hasn’t followed the predilections of the doomsday cultist they have changed to climate change. Yet if we do not blindly follow we are deniers???


Yes please do note that comment, it has to be the best evidence of exactly what I am saying. These people post anything pretending they know what it is. Stating it is ideology and conspiracy theories not to believe what he believes, yet, it is climate change just not the way he wants it… HOW STUPID is that??? Sounds a hell of a lot like religion to me.

 

Yeah it does, just like "it is temperature measurement so it must be the actual measurements"

Isn’t that typical… Why would I want to try and present myself as being aloof over the people who are going to read these comments??? Why would I expect others to be meeting my standards just to hear their opinions and beliefs???


Clearly, this point as gone over your head, as you continue demand your right while trying to attack the person.

No you never claimed it was “outside natural deviation” You claimed it as definitive evidence of AGW as it was the reality of what is happening. And before you cry you never said that, no you didn’t I am paraphrasing. But this is the issue of using the chart as to demonstrate anything of AGW or ice sheet melting you have to show that the anomaly is outside of the natural deviation.


Since you don’t believe it is outside natural deviation then it is obvious you know the chart is unacceptable for the purpose you claimed it THUS deception is being made…

I am not saying the data is wrong, that ice sheet is doing anything and anything thing else you are trying to claim. The fact is, I am saying by posting deceptive charts and data and trying to portray them as something they are not is why people don’t listen or agree… nothing more.

You claim it is actual observations. Then you claim that is observations of the deviations of averages and now you chart it by removing the averages…. Don’t know what you call it, but others have words for it…

As stated your trying to introduce ambiguity… I am not sure how posting a link defends that point but ok, whatever floats your boat…

Is it YOUR claim that this chart shows the reality of what is occurring here??? Is it YOUR claim that this chart represents the actual observations???


As it is my point that you are, if you take the observations and then remove anything you can no longer claim it is actual observations. Standardizing anything is exactly that changing observable data to present whatever is needed. AS this chart is to demonstrate there is some variance that needs further study, claiming it is the culmination of the science is fraud or fabrications…

Ho-hum… Seriously, don’t get it yet. The chart is not deceptive, YOUR use of the chart is. You just don’t get it. I keep saying your presentation of the chart is deceptive and thus turning people away from your claim.

No, I can see clearly from your other posts you have no idea. You simply follow a faith until your overlords tell you to change your opinion. This is explained by your Vermont attack on people who do not simply follow what you say because they don’t limit themselves to simple stupid populist belief. I don’t think there is any discussion here, and since I know your answers already are based in faith and not consideration, questions are pointless.

Oh dear, let me get this straight, you post a chart and claim it is actual observations of the melting ice caps, demonstration of man’s input into the climate change theories… I say, the chart does not show that and this is why people give you little credit and it suddenly it is this strawman… You know the strawman I kept saying you were building??? I don’t know if I can be more specific but As stated this is about the use of, not the actual evidence.


I really do wonder but if all you have is strawman argument then I guess I can say I am winning and leave it to the readers to decide. I am sure you will have your followers posting their likes and commenting how great you did, but I don’t care about that. What I do care about is that people think for themselves and examine the evidence the way it is supposed to be done. NOT the pretentious way it is presented by some.

 

You're right. I never said that. What I do say is that there are many lines of evidence, thousands in fact, including that chart that is definitive proof that the Earth is warming. That chart is but a very small and insignificant percentage of the vast quantity of evidence.

No, it isn't *my* claim. It is the claim of the contributors to that chart and the entirety of the scientific community. I even gave you the link to download the raw data and see for yourself.

Again, nothing is removed or filtered. And if you think "standardizing" a dataset is deceptive then you're going to be very dissatisfied with pretty much all disciplines of science. Hell, the medical field makes use of statistical techniques like these way more than climate science. My hunch is that you aren't as hung up about it as you let on though. Afterall, I trust you'll still go to the doctor and accept diagnosis and treatment regiments which were developed using post processing techniques that go way be what you see in that sea ice chart.

I've not misrepresented anything. The Antarctic really did have a 3 sigma record high event followed by a 5 sigma record low event. That really happened. That's not deceptive. That's reality.

Then what do *you* think the chart shows? Do you disagree that the chart shows that the Antarctic had a 3 sigma record high event?

 

First, understand that when I call someone a denier it is not meant to be derogatory. It's just shorter than saying "someone who denies science". Second, yes, my belief is centered on hard science and the abundance of evidence. I go where the abundance of evidence goes. That's my belief. I specifically shun unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. And I reject theories that have a repeated history of failing in the worst possible ways. That means I reject theories that say man made greenhouse gas and aerosol molecules are magical. Experiment after experiment has confirmed that man made molecules lack this mysterious magical physics defying property that deniers claim they must have. No experiment has ever shown that man made molecules behave any differently than nature made molecules. So yes, if you reject this fact then you are denying science. If you reject the fact that the laws of physics were the same in the past as they are today then you are denying science. If you reject the fact that CO2, H20, CH4, CFCs, etc get their molecular vibrational modes activated by longwave photons then you are denying science.

I absolutely acknowledge that climate change is cyclic. I have no choice because that's what the abundance of evidence shows. Just like I have no choice but to accept the fact that CO2 influenced climate change in the past just as it is now. In fact, there are many physical processes that modulate the climate and cause to be cyclic. Those same process that occurred in the past work the exact same way today. It just so happens that greenhouse gases and aerosols, most of which are sourced by man, are dominating the effect today.

But when and how will it cool? And what will it do in the meantime? Remember, we want to know what the climate will be like in 100 years so that we can mitigate or adapt to it and begin making plans now.

I do not believe man will perish in a mass extinction event. By the way, this is an example of a strawman. It's a strawman because I'm not the one who that claim. It was you.

So let me get this straight. I formulate a position based on hard science and the abundance of evidence and that's stupid to you?

 

And you suggest other folks are deniers? Really? So how about this. The hard science demonstrates that climate variation has happened. That it is currently happening, and our assumption then is that it will continue to do so in the future. I then wonder why the observation that climate is changing, and for this cycle, temperatures are on the upward swing, that this, by itself is then catastrophic?

You like labeling folks, so help me understand why you aren't the very definition then, of someone your refer to as a denier? The science suggests we should expect this to be a part of the natural variation of our climate, right? So what part of your commentary then doesn't deny this? If your entire premise is that climate must not then change, are you not denying the science of climate variation? It would seem so to me.

So, by formulating a position, based on hard science, as you state, why ignore the rest of the science that say that we expect that this should be happening?

 

I don't think the warming were currently experiencing and will experience in the near future is catastrophic.

Absolutely. The science does indeed say that the Earth warms and that it is a natural inevitability. But, that same science also says that it wouldn't be happening today if humans weren't involved. In other words, just because natural warming is inevitable sometime in the future that doesn't mean that it was supposed to be happening today.

I'm not. That's why a fully acknowledge that the Earth will continue to warm and cool without human influence. But that acknowledgement in no way does anything to invalidate my acknowledgement that humans can also contribute to the warming and cooling of the planet depending on our behaviors.

 

Ah, the we contribute piece. So, as noted, you, yourself agree that you're in denial. That the natural process then is one we expect to happen, so the only piece of contention then is actually demonstrating that contribution piece. And, as you've noted before, ALL of what we currently see in climate temp advance is entirely attributable to human activity. Right? All of it is what you've said. Even though you agree that natural process indicates that nature is also contributing to this rebound, right? In fact, you've intimated that absent human activity, that you would expect that instead of warming, you believe that we should be plunging into the deep freeze again, and that only our, *manmade" influence is keeping this from happening.

More, you've suggested that you'd support things from a policy perspective that would improve climate, right? So, I'll ask it to you this way. If man is wholly responsible for keeping the world climate from plunging back into the deep freeze, why is this then bad? Why do the AGW faithful all intone in unison the evils of man, and their untiring efforts to reverse our contributions? Why? I think that's a pretty straight forward question that someone, like you, who bats for the AGW team to answer.

 

I'm not in denial of anything. Like I said I fully acknowledge that both nature and humans contribute to climate change. That's what the abundance of evidence suggests so I have no choice but to acknowledge it.

We expect it to happen. Just not today. And yes, the biggest contention here is contribution of effects. Deniers claim it is ONLY nature. Scientists claim it is both nature AND man.

All of it after 1950. Most of it prior to 1900 was due to natural influences. There is a grey period between 1900 and 1950 in which the anthroprogenic component was ramping up.

Not a deep freeze, but a slow almost imperceptible decline in temperature. And that's only after 1960 in which solar activity peaked.

Like I said, I don't think a deep freeze was inevitable in the near future. It's certainly likely within the next 10,000 years or so, but it's difficult to say when the next deep freeze would actually happen. Warming is bad because it will reduce GDPs and Earth's carrying capacity. The "ideal" temperature is whatever it is today.

It is a fair question. I don't think our behaviors are evil. Burning fossil fuels is directly linked with an explosion of wealth and well being. But, like most things in life it comes at a price. It's time to start limiting the damage we are doing to the Earth for the betterment of future generations. I want to do it in a way that doesn't suppress civilization, but to actually further it along. Specifically I want the United States to capitalize on it. I want us to be the leader in new energy technologies that we can have other countries pay us for the tech so that we get filthy rich off it. And we help the planet in the process. Win-Win.

 

This is an interesting admission. It seems to undercut other parts of your commentary. If "today" is the only option, aren't you specifically making it hard on all of those places where the climate may not be optimal? That seems pretty problematic. So, while you might enjoy your climate, for example, it seems to be ignorant then of those other variations of climate that are not so optimal.

Further, all of those catastrophic things you earlier dismissed then come back, as your concern over the reduction of GDPs, and transcending the carry capacity, and all. Yikes. That doesn't seem consistent. So, help us understand then, when you express concern over man's impact on the climate, are you then also not concerned that man would do something different that might also effect the way our climate functions? I've asked this question of you before, and frankly, you always deflect it.

So, now, which is it?

 

My point is that there is no "normal" temperature at least as defined in absolute terms. The "ideal" temperature is one that doesn't change much. That allows humans to optimize our civilization to whatever the temperature may be without trying to hit a moving target. The faster the temperature changes the harder it is to adapt.

Concern and Catastrophe are not the same thing. I can be concerned about something without thinking it will be a catastrophe.

Again, you're framing the problem in binary terms. It's the same thing you do with the warming causes. For some reason your mind is telling you that it has to either be natural or man, but it can't possibly be both. Likewise, your mind is telling you that it either has to be a catastrophe or it's of no concern at all, but it can't possibly be something in the middle. This binary way of thinking is the wrong way to think about things. The fact is that both nature AND man can modulate the climate. It is a spectrum of causes. Likewise, you can be concerned with the problem without thinking it necessarily leads to a catastrophe. It's a spectrum of concern.

And yes. I am concerned that our attempts to "fix" the problem may have an undesirable effect. That's why I think things like geoengineering solar blocks (like with reflective shields or with reflective aerosols) is a bad idea. Not only would we still pumping out gigatons of carbon into the air, but we'd be adding yet another variable to the mix. It's a far safer (and likely cheaper) option to reduce the magnitude of one variable instead of introducing another in an attempt to offset the former.

 

AGW itself is a lie. Just like the coming global ice age, peak oil, global famine due to overpopulation, and all the other "green" claims of looming disaster.

The lie to scare people into giving the "progressives" political power.

 

The fact that the Earth is warming because of the net effect of all physical process that modulate temperature is a lie? Dare I ask I how you came to that conclusion?

The "coming global ice age" is the only one related to this thread so I'll just address that.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

AGW is a scientific theory; not a political theory. It is only concerned with explain past and present climate behaviors and predicting future ones. It does not invoke a political party or ideology because it does not need to.

I do concede that AGW is often used for political gain. That is wrong. But, that doesn't mean AGW itself is a lie. It's no different then the utilization of other disciplines of science for political gain. Scientists can't keep politicians from abusing their work.

And besides, why does it have to be a progressive issue? Shouldn't it actually be a conservative issue? Isn't one aspect of conservatism the idea about keeping things the way they are? Like, why is it a bad thing to want to leave Earth the way it is instead of changing it?

That's some pretty strange irony for you. Progessives want to slow the change and conservatives want to speed it up. I guess that's a hard concept for us politically independent to people to wrap our heads around.

 

So, I'm going to respond to two things at this point. First, no, your first answer was that today is optimal. Now, in this post, it isn't, and you now adopt a "there isn't an optimal"... I know, we're talking about consistency here, and you don't disappoint by providing yet another alternative of how to answer a question.

Second, No. Absolutely not. I've asked, repetitively over the years for us to show the contributions of man, specifically given the output we're capable of, and repetitively, you've said that since the 60s, there isn't a natural component driving warming. Now, that doesn't mean that I don't believe in coexistence. I ask, I never get a quantification. I have always assumed that natural process continues to influence. That isn't binary. What I would really like to actually see is something that indicates to us that while the Nature produces say 96% of all CO2 yearly, that the 3-4% or so that is man made is the ONLY THING then that creates additional warming. And so far, that just isn't there, is it? More, the additional 100 or so ppm that we can measure have to, at some point, be quantified.

And before we run off on these endless assumption based forcing models, mistagged isotope discussions, it would be refreshing to see something that says, if CO2 that is generated by human activity can actually be separated from or acts differently than naturally generated CO2. Because, I don't think you can. CO2 is CO2 is CO2 regardless of how, or where it is produced. The nature then either will, or will not reuse the free CO2 available. But it is wholly unreasonable to assert that my CO2 is somehow more damaging than say CO2 that is released because a horn eared owl farts, or breathes. Or that CO2 output from an automobile is more damaging than CO2 produced by wild fire. Or fire, or fish breathing.

And since we're talking about GHGs, why exclude things like the most common one? H2O. Something like what, 90% of warming is attributable to the humidity level, right? (or more accurately, the retention of heat not surface temperature) Guess we need to start rationing water. I bet millions on the S Carolina/N Carolina coasts are way more worried about the blanket rapidly approaching them, huh?

 

Just because it's convenient for you to assert that you believe that all natural process is now the same as Anthropogenic, doesn't mean that it is, or that anyone else believes that the word Anthropogenic actually includes all natural processes.

 

When I say "today's temperature is optimal" I mean that in the context of whatever it happens to be as long as it doesn't change. Optimal is whatever T happens to be as long as ΔT = 0. There is no optimal absolute T. I don't know how to make that any more clear.

Correct. But let me be precise on wording here so that there is no ambiguity. ALL physical processes are driving or influencing the global mean surface temperature at ALL times. It is the net effect of all of them that determines the magnitude of the temperature change. It just so happens that it is the physical processes activated by anthroprogenic behaviors that are the dominating factor right now.

Yes. Physical processes activated by natural behaviors do continue to influence the climate. I have posted the quantification dozens of times on this forum. It's all spelled out in the IPCC AR5 Physical Science Basis Report. To summarize the net effect of all naturally modulated physical processes is believed to be between +0.1 and -0.1 W/m^2. The net effect of all anthroprogenically modulated physical process is believed to have increased from +0.5 W/m^2 in 1950 to about 2.0 W/m^2 today. Notice that I'm not ignoring naturally modulated factors. I'm just saying they are dwarfed by anthroprogenically modulated factors.

But CO2 isn't the only thing that modulates the temperature. That's what I'm trying to say. In addition to CO2 other molecules like H2O, CH4, O3, CFCs, Halocarbons, Nitrates, etc all have electromagnetic absorption spectrums that influence how radiation enters and leaves the geosphere. Then there are aerosol molecules that generally reflect away incoming shortwave radiation when they are lofted high in the atmosphere. Then there are solar cycles that actually change the amount of radiation leaving the Sun. Then there are orbital cycles that effect how much radiation the Earth actually receives. Then there are albedo differences that determine how much Earth absorbs or reflects away. Then there are heat storage mediums that determine where the excess heat actually goes. The heat is absorbed by land, ocean, air, and ice. Then there are heat flux processes that determine how the heat moves between these different mediums. There is a lot of stuff in play. Some anthroprogenic behaviors actually work to cool the planet. See the following charts for just a brief introduction to the elements that are considered. And please read the IPCC AR5 report.

EXACTLY!

A CO2 molecule emitted by man does in any way behave any differently than if it were emitted by nature. It's molecular vibrational modes are activated by specific IR photons regardless of who/what emitted them. That is the big realization I want you to take away. CO2 that was emitted entirely by nature in the past has the exact same temperature modulating behavior then as it does by man made emissions today. An increase in CO2 in the past produces an upward forcing on the temperature exactly like it does today. The only difference is that 100% of the CO2 in the air in the past was nature made whereas today only about 78% of it is. But, it doesn't matter because it all behaves the same. Note that the isotope ratio is a factor of the number neutrons in the carbon atom and they have zero effect the molecular vibration of the CO2 molecule. Assuming all other things remain equal a 130 ppm increase of CO2 from 280 ppm to 480 ppm will have a radiative forcing of 5.35 * ln(410/280) = 2.0 W/m^2 regardless of how those molecules got into the air.

Nobody is excluding it. In the charts above H2O is included in the CO2 forcing by convention. The reason is because H2O is not a forcing mechanisms. It is just an amplifier. It cannot catalyze a temperature change by itself. But, it can participate in feedbacks that cause it to amplify the temperature change. That is why, by convention, it is already included in the sensitivity measurements of the various gas species that actually do force a change. For example, of CO2's 5.35 * ln(410/280) = 2.0 W/m^2 of radiative forcing about 50% is attributed to the increase in kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule itself whereas the remaining 50% attributed to the H2O molecule. Again, this is all spelled our quite nicely in the scientific literature. You can find a summary in the IPCC AR5 report.

That won't work. And it's the same reason why H2O is an amplifier of change and not a catalyzer of it. That is, water vapor is in a stable equilibrium with the temperature. If WV mixing ratios are perturbed away from this equilibrium level a negative feedback will activate to pull it back into equilibrium. For example, if we could somehow magically and suddenly double or halve the WV concentration this very moment it would reacheive it's original equilibrium with a few weeks or months at most. This is actually an intuitive and plainly obvious concept. If WV were not in a stable equilibrium then something as trivial as Hurricane Florence would kick start a runway feedback that would increase WV in the atmosphere at an ever faster pace until the entire ocean evaporated. But alas, after a billion years of countless hurricanes that never happened.

What I'm saying is that if humans embarked on a mega project to loft as much water vapor into the atmosphere at unbelievable rates in attempt to drive the WV concentration up we'd fail miserably. It would all be for naught because WV fluxes in and out of the atmosphere are self limiting. The more you put in the harder it is to put the next ppm in. Likewise, the more you take out the harder it is to pull the next ppm out. The only thing that drives WV concentrations is the temperature of the atmosphere.

 

The physical processes are exactly the same. The difference is that both nature and man can modulate the inputs. It's like I said in my previous post a CO2 molecule behaves the same regardless of how it got in the atmosphere. Nature modulated the flux in the past. Today man is modulating the flux. But, the end result is the same. The behavior is the same and the magnitude of the effect is the same.

This is why climate scientists are able to explain both past AND present climate changes. Deniers can only explain past climate change because they think man made GHGs and aerosol molecules have some magic and unidentified physics defying property that prevents them influencing the climate so the explicitly ignore it. That's why denier predictions fail badly at predicting the global mean surface temperature and ocean heat uptake. It's because they think the laws of physics are different today than they were in the past.

 

And iamanonman what, is not following data ?

He has a lot more data than you do considering that thousands of scientists have to produce it everyday to feed the paradigm of scientific consensus, the monster they created and now have no power over.

You believe in existence of an entity, a value which never was defined in terms of science, you cannot describe it and say what it is, and your refer to it as it fits, and in the meaning totally opposing its scientific meaning, and that is no different from believing in Flying Spaghetti Monster.

My position is explained clearly, in amusement I am watching all sides and kinds of religious fanatics breaking spears in the name of the FSM to see if my prediction of self annihilation will become true.

Frankly iamanonman's FSM is a lot more entertaining than yours.

But again you are not interested in anybody's position, your mouth is open, but eyes and ears are closed.

Carry on with your beliefs.

 

So many strawmen so little time


You have NOT presented actual arguments

Get back to us with a debate point drawn from the IPCC not what some rightwingnut has written in a blog

Did you actually fact check your source (remembering you should not confuse poor journalism with good science). He hid the pea

That temperature recording was from ONE site

BIRDSVILLE!!!!!

 

All right, defend the IPCC claim all Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Tic tock....