Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[Crick]

Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​

Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

Direct link to the study:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies.
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.
This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.

The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect."

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover "practically" controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.

The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland's Turku University team:
We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.
This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries' populations.

Conclusions from both the Japanese and Finnish studies strongly suggest, for example, that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "drastic measures to cut carbon emissions" which would ultimately require radical legislation changes to "remake the U.S. economy" would not only potentially bankrupt everyone but simply wouldn't even work, at least according to the new Finnish research team findings.

To put AOC's "drastic measures" in perspective — based entirely on the fundamental assumption of the monumental and disastrous impact of human activity on the climate — consider the following conclusions from the Finnish studies:
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”
Which leads the scientists to state further:
“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide is less than 10 percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers concluded.
And the team in Japan has called for a total reevaluation of current climate models, which remain dangerously flawed for dismissing a crucial variable:
This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.
Failure to account for this results in the following, according to the one in the series of studies: "The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models."

"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice," the researchers conclude.

Though we doubt the ideologues currently pushing to radically remake the American economy through what ends up being a $93 trillion proposal (according to one study) — including AOC's call for a whopping 70% top tax rate — will carefully inquire of this new bombshell scientific confirmation presented in the new research, we at least hope the US scientific community takes heed before it's too late in the cause of accurate and authentic science that would stave off irreparable economic disaster that would no doubt ripple across the globe, adding to both human and environmental misery.

And "too late" that is, not for some mythical imminent or near-future "global warming Armageddon" as the currently in vogue highly politicized "science" of activists and congress members alike claims.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...exist-practice

is this where one of the board left wing mods says this is a wall of text and it isn't political?

Actually everything is political. Especially man made climate change.

Has little to do with with actual weather.

Have you noticed that this "bombshell study" was put up on Arxiv in June of 2019 and has yet to be published anywhere? As I'm certain you've been told a thousand times, Arxiv is a pre-print resource. As written, this paper has been through NO peer review. That it has not been published in more than two years time tells us that it has not been able to survive such review. Here is a quick one pointing out a few of this "study's" significant flaws:

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global...

climatefeedback.org

Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That it has not been published in more than two years time tells us that it has not been able to survive such review.

If they used Mike's Nature Trick would they be more likely, or less likely, to be published?

 

[Theowl32]

Have you noticed that this "bombshell study" was put up on Arxiv in June of 2019 and has yet to be published anywhere? As I'm certain you've been told a thousand times, Arxiv is a pre-print resource. As written, this paper has been through NO peer review. That it has not been published in more than two years time tells us that it has not been able to survive such review. Here is a quick one pointing out a few of this "study's" significant flaws:

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global...

climatefeedback.org

Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

Yet that study was done by scientists and no peer review only indicates something a bit nefarious with a global movement.

What is true is nearly every prediction made by environmentalists have actually been proven false over the last 50 years.

It was supposed to be global cooling that would bring about the new ice age as predicted 50 years ago.

Then, acid rain was supposed to create a world wide famine as predicted by environmentalists in 80s.

Then, the hole in the ozone, which was what was actually causing THE global warming has been "fixed." How? Cause of the Montreal Protocol. Yes, you would think that would be bigger news, but it isn't.

Being that the hole ozone layer is fixed, and the world did not turn into a big block of ice, now it is ALL CLIMATE CHANGE.

I guess learning that they cannot be specific cause when something specific doesn't happen, people like me can ask.....some questions.

So, with something ambiguous like CLIMATE CHANGE (which a constant) they (or you) can point to every single last thing, from big snow storms, to heat waves, to tornadoes, and hurricanes (everything in the climate and weather) can be crowed about by the fossil fuel guzzlers on the left.

Either way, the left who preach these things still do NOTHING ABOUT IT other than yelling and pointing and seeing YOU SEEEEE!!!!!!

Not much different from someone preaching faith and not living it. Hypocrisy on both sides.

So, what's my point? Well there is a point there. Isn't there?

 

[Crick]

Yet that study was done by scientists and no peer review only indicates something a bit nefarious with a global movement.

It was done by two physicists with apparently no experience in climatology. The errors they made were basic and fundamental.

What is true is nearly every prediction made by environmentalists have actually been proven false over the last 50 years.

That statement is meaningless. Who are "environmentalists"? If you'd like to restrict yourself to the work of the IPCC, I can clearly demonstrate that almost every measure of global warming has proceeded more rapidly than the projections the politically stifled IPCC scientists have made.

It was supposed to be global cooling that would bring about the new ice age as predicted 50 years ago.

This is bullshit. The number of peer reviewed papers predicting a new ice age may be counted on the fingers of one hand and none have appeared in decades. The number of papers whose conclusions support AGW number in the tens of thousands.

Then, acid rain was supposed to create a world wide famine as predicted by environmentalists in 80s.

Again, who are "environmentalists"? Famine as a result of acid rain was the prediction of Dr Paul Ehrlich, a biologist with a few popular books to sell. Acid rain was real and was mitigated primarily by increased restrictions on the emission of sulfur dioxide and related compounds that were causing pH changes to rainfall.

Then, the hole in the ozone, which was what was actually causing THE global warming has been "fixed." How? Cause of the Montreal Protocol. Yes, you would think that would be bigger news, but it isn't.

The loss of ozone did increase global warming and the Montreal Protocol was effective. It was big news. Perhaps you were too young to notice.

Being that the hole ozone layer is fixed, and the world did not turn into a big block of ice, now it is ALL CLIMATE CHANGE.

The primary motivation behind the Montreal Protocol was not warming but the increased cancer rates that would result from increased UV radiation. No one was predicting that eliminating polyfluorochlorocarbons would decrease global temperatures.

I guess learning that they cannot be specific cause when something specific doesn't happen, people like me can ask.....some questions.

Global temperatures increasing steadily for the last 150 years IS something specific happening. And the work of tens of thousands of scientists all over the planet have clearly and unequivocally shown that it has a specific primary cause: human greenhouse gas emissions.

So, with something ambiguous like CLIMATE CHANGE (which a constant) they (or you) can point to every single last thing, from big snow storms, to heat waves, to tornadoes, and hurricanes (everything in the climate and weather) can be crowed about by the fossil fuel guzzlers on the left.

Either way, the left who preach these things still do NOTHING ABOUT IT other than yelling and pointing and seeing YOU SEEEEE!!!!!!

Not much different from someone preaching faith and not living it. Hypocrisy on both sides.

So, what's my point? Well there is a point there. Isn't there?

Increasing fuel efficiency in the world's automotive fleet. The increasing acceptance of hybrid and fully electric vehicles. Several large automobile makers phasing out ICE altogether. The increasing use of wind, solar PV and other alternative technologies for the generation of power world wide. The publication and assessment of the work of thousands of scientists identifying the causes of the observed warming, what that warming unchecked will do to the human race and every other species on the planet and, finally, what can and must be done to stop it. It looks to me as if all manner of things are being done. Not enough, but at least we are trying to move in the right direction. If you wish to continue to demonstrate your ignorance here, please carry on. I suspect the net result of any conversation between the two of us will be a boon to my side of this argument. Try to remember that you are making the same arguments as several posters here famed for their idiotic lunacy.

It is not easy to win an argument when the facts simply do not support your position.

 

[Theowl32]

Global temperatures increasing steadily for the last 150 years IS something specific happening. And the work of tens of thousands of scientists all over the planet have clearly and unequivocally shown that it has a specific primary cause: human greenhouse gas emissions.

Ok, yes. From what I understand the earth came out of the little ice age around 1850. Somewhere around that time.

That was before any combustion engine was invented. There was mass burning of fossil fuels though and there was mass burning of fossil fuels since we climbed out of the stone age.

You aren't proposing we should go back to the stone age are you? No fossil fuels would be burned, except of course when mass forest fires happen or volcanoes explode.

 

[percysunshine]

Chaos + AGW = Chaos

Now do the inversion.

 

[Crick]

Ok, yes. From what I understand the earth came out of the little ice age around 1850. Somewhere around that time.

That was before any combustion engine was invented. There was mass burning of fossil fuels though and there was mass burning of fossil fuels since we climbed out of the stone age.

You aren't proposing we should go back to the stone age are you? No fossil fuels would be burned, except of course when mass forest fires happen or volcanoes explode.

The Little Ice Age was not an ice age and it was not even global. Current warming is NOT related to the Little Ice Age. The denier tactic accusing advocates of mainstream science of trying to return humanity to the Stone Age makes no sense from any standpoint. But if you'd like to see a little of what the Stone Age was like, just wait till social order has collapsed from the costs of dealing with an extra meter of seawater at the coasts and the consequences of trying to relocate several hundred million people all in the midst of droughts, floods, food shortages and pandemics of resistant viral strains. I rather hope I'll be gone by then but it would only be fitting if every one of you fucking deniers lived long enough to see how wrong you've been and what your ignorant reticence has cost everyone.

 

[Theowl32]

The Little Ice Age was not an ice age and it was not even global. Current warming is NOT related to the Little Ice Age. The denier tactic accusing advocates of mainstream science of trying to return humanity to the Stone Age makes no sense from any standpoint. But if you'd like to see a little of what the Stone Age was like, just wait till social order has collapsed from the costs of dealing with an extra meter of seawater at the coasts and the consequences of trying to relocate several hundred million people all in the midst of droughts, floods, food shortages and pandemics of resistant viral strains. I rather hope I'll be gone by then but it would only be fitting if every one of you fucking deniers lived long enough to see how wrong you've been and what your ignorant reticence has cost everyone.

You had just said the global temperatures have been increasing over the last 150 years (or so.)

Those are your words and I pointed out that I read where the world (or region) came out of the little ice age (that is what it was called and did exist) around 1850.

That is about that time line and that was at least two decades before the combustion engine was invented.

So, what caused those temperatures to begin rising. Wasn't because of combustion engines. That is what that means.

Farts? Human farts? Cow farts? Human belches?

Ok, what do the warmers think? White people? Seriously. In all seriousness. What? America? Capitalism? The Boston tea party?

Tell us YOUR SOLUTION. Tell me why the left get all upset when someone like points out the fossil fuel guzzlers on the left who DO NOTHING FOR THE PLANET other than hating America and capitalism well enough and being a good enough socialist.

If every NON DENIER lived out the lives they preach about, then what? I guess it is similar rhetorical question on why so many NON DENIERS live along oceans around the world.

No point answering those since they are rhetorical and actually comments.

So, back to the FACT that combustion engines not having anything to do with the rising temperatures..

Waiting for your detailed plan. Include all logistics implementation of your plan.

Thanks

 

[Crick]

You fail basic history? Sit down somewhere quiet and read the article at this link: Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia

 

[Theowl32]

You fail basic history? Sit down somewhere quiet and read the article at this link: Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia

So you agree that the combustion engine had nothing to do with rising temperatures?

Cannot tell. Your timeline of 150 years (actually about 170) is before that was invented.

Ok...

So my rhetorical questions had no effect eh? Yeah, but the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

Ok

There was no electricity, no combustion engines, no gasoline, no cars, ships still run by wind and currents, less people farting and belching, less cow farts, (far less) so tell us how Americans started THE global warming.

Does it have anything to with Native Americans not having a word for wheel? No?

Huh

What is your conclusion about the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION that you benefit from now, attack it incessantly and continue to chide down from your hypocritical platitude?

 

[Crick]

I tire of providing the needed education of someone who seems to think of themselves as a wise owl. I think most 7th graders can accurately describe the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, particularly pertaining to increasing GHG emissions.

We have, of course, all benefitted from the Industrial Revolution. But that benefit has come with costs. Some we could see more easily than others: the razing of the world's forests, paving tens of thousands of square miles of open land to accelerate transportation, mining for coal, metals, drilling for oil, air, land and water pollution from the waste products and by-products of these processes. And, finally, the more subtle process, essentially invisibly to the human sense: the relentless warming of the planet as we burn fossil fuels and cook limestone for cement leading to the unprecedented growth of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere..

PS, Perhaps I should be flattered by your attempt, but your final phrase indicates you don't actually know the meaning of the words "chide" or "platitude", Mr Owl.

 

[Theowl32]

I tire of providing the needed education of someone who seems to think of themselves as a wise owl. I think most 7th graders can accurately describe the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, particularly pertaining to increasing GHG emissions.

We have, of course, all benefitted from the Industrial Revolution. But that benefit has come with costs. Some we could see more easily than others: the razing of the world's forests, paving tens of thousands of square miles of open land to accelerate transportation, mining for coal, metals, drilling for oil, air, land and water pollution from the waste products and by-products of these processes. And, finally, the more subtle process, essentially invisibly to the human sense: the relentless warming of the planet as we burn fossil fuels and cook limestone for cement leading to the unprecedented growth of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere..

PS, Perhaps I should be flattered by your attempt, but your final phrase indicates you don't actually know the meaning of the words "chide" or "platitude", Mr Owl.

Oh, so all that and you still have not provided your comprehensive plan. Also, can you tell me all of the things YOU ARE DOING to offset......your CARBON FOOTPRINT?

Also, being that the warming began before the combustion engine was invented....

Ok, ignore that. You have to. Right? The industrial revolution. Ok, so....

There were no oil refineries. There was no electricity. Ships still made their way by wind and currents. Don't think there were steel buildings being built yet. Far less people in the world.

So, what were the humans doing that caused the temperature to rise? Burning of coal...for iron and steel.

Is that what you are suggesting caused it? Cause humans have been that since the stone age. Cannot tell if you are denying this or not.

Also, CHIDE: intransitive verb. : to speak out in angry or displeased rebuke is quick to chide against the mayor for his negligence. transitive verb. : to voice disapproval to

PLATITUDE: noun
Definition of Platitude. something that has been said so often that it is not interesting anymore.

The left (you) chide down from your little platitudes as if any of you actually do anything for the planet.

Tell me, just curious here. Did you purchase carbon credits from al gore? Can you tell me the size of your carbon footprint?

Every last one of you that chide down from your platitudes about the environment are ALL FREE TO LIVE LIKE THE AMISH, but do any of you?

I btw don't doubt your knowledge. Seems you are full of that. What I don't see are your solutions. We cannot tell what you are suggesting we do and what's more I don't really see any of you doing anything.

Will socialism and large amounts of taxes save us? Btw, do you voluntarily pay more taxes? Every left winger I know take tax breaks.

I mean you can pay more you know. You know that, right? Do you?

Hello?

 

[Crick]

Oh, so all that and you still have not provided your comprehensive plan. Also, can you tell me all of the things YOU ARE DOING to offset......your CARBON FOOTPRINT?

Also, being that the warming began before the combustion engine was invented....

Ok, ignore that. You have to. Right? The industrial revolution. Ok, so....

There were no oil refineries. There was no electricity. Ships still made their way by wind and currents. Don't think there were steel buildings being built yet. Far less people in the world.

So, what were the humans doing that caused the temperature to rise? Burning of coal...for iron and steel.

Is that what you are suggesting caused it? Cause humans have been that since the stone age. Cannot tell if you are denying this or not.

Also, CHIDE: intransitive verb. : to speak out in angry or displeased rebuke is quick to chide against the mayor for his negligence. transitive verb. : to voice disapproval to

PLATITUDE: noun
Definition of Platitude. something that has been said so often that it is not interesting anymore.

The left (you) chide down from your little platitudes as if any of you actually do anything for the planet.

Tell me, just curious here. Did you purchase carbon credits from al gore? Can you tell me the size of your carbon footprint?

Every last one of you that chide down from your platitudes about the environment are ALL FREE TO LIVE LIKE THE AMISH, but do any of you?

I btw don't doubt your knowledge. Seems you are full of that. What I don't see are your solutions. We cannot tell what you are suggesting we do and what's more I don't really see any of you doing anything.

Will socialism and large amounts of taxes save us? Btw, do you voluntarily pay more taxes? Every left winger I know take tax breaks.

I mean you can pay more you know. You know that, right? Do you?

Hello?

First the English lesson. You probably should have assumed that I would not have made that comment if I did not know the definition of "chide" and "platitude". Your error was to add the preposition "down" to the former and to treat "platitude" as a place. But, since you failed to see that - chose instead to double down on your mistake - there is no point in carrying on.

The more important point, for this thread and this forum, is that my personal behavior (and that of others) has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of AGW theory and that your continued attacks (and that of others) on individual's behavior is just one more indication that you lack the facts, the evidence, the reasoning or the logic to in any way refute the almost universally accepted theory. Anthropogenic Global Warming is supported by absolute mountains of evidence: tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers describing the results of tens of thousands of studies and experiments. It's support among those with advanced science educations is very near universal.

As to my personal conduct and what I would recommend we can all do to help: buy high mileage, hybrid or EV automobiles. Consider installing EV panels and/or solar water heaters at home. Ride a bike or walk whenever you can. Take public transportation whenever possible. Turn out your lights (which should all be LED by this point) when you leave a room. Try to reduce the amount of disposable and even recyclable plastic you purchase. Recycle as much of your waste as you can and urge your local recycling authorities to improve their efficiency. Make your property as diverse as possible with native plants and flowers. Finally, do the one thing that I and millions of our fellow Americans have done that will do more to fight AGW than any other act: vote for political candidates that accept the science and the threat and the immediate and urgent need to act now. No one who voted for Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden need to feel the least bit shamed by these pointless, ad hominem, denier attacks. Keeping forever out of office Donald Trump and any other politician whose opinions re AGW even vaguely resemble his is more than enough good for any one person to do. Vote like the lives of you and your family depend on it, because they do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First the English lesson. You probably should have assumed that I would not have made that comment if I did not know the definition of "chide" and "platitude". Your error was to add the preposition "down" to the former and to treat "platitude" as a place. But, since you failed to see that - chose instead to double down on your mistake - there is no point in carrying on.

The more important point, for this thread and this forum, is that my personal behavior (and that of others) has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of AGW theory and that your continued attacks (and that of others) on individual's behavior is just one more indication that you lack the facts, the evidence, the reasoning or the logic to in any way refute the almost universally accepted theory. Anthropogenic Global Warming is supported by absolute mountains of evidence: tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers describing the results of tens of thousands of studies and experiments. It's support among those with advanced science educations is very near universal.

As to my personal conduct and what I would recommend we can all do to help: buy high mileage, hybrid or EV automobiles. Consider installing EV panels and/or solar water heaters at home. Ride a bike or walk whenever you can. Take public transportation whenever possible. Turn out your lights (which should all be LED by this point) when you leave a room. Try to reduce the amount of disposable and even recyclable plastic you purchase. Recycle as much of your waste as you can and urge your local recycling authorities to improve their efficiency. Make your property as diverse as possible with native plants and flowers. Finally, do the one thing that I and millions of our fellow Americans have done that will do more to fight AGW than any other act: vote for political candidates that accept the science and the threat and the immediate and urgent need to act in response. No one who voted for Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden need to feel the least bit shamed by these pointless, ad hominem, denier attacks. Keeping forever out of office Donald Trump and any other politician whose opinions re AGW even vaguely resemble his is more than enough good for any one person to do. Vote like the lives of your family depend on it, because they do.

And support Nobel Prize winners, even if they molest the data.

 

[Crick]

Trump was only nominated. Don't fret.

 

[bodecea]

It's too late to do anything anyways.....enjoy.

 

[Crick]

That is NOT true. It is too late to prevent SOME bad things from happening, but acting now will prevent even WORSE things from also happening. Sitting back and doing nothing is surrendering to a complete disaster. I certainly hope that is not where we're going. I have children, one of whom is soon going to have our first grandchild. I am very concerned about what they and their children will have to deal with as they grow. I would hope you are too.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trump was only nominated. Don't fret.

I'm talking about the hockey stick guy........

 

[Crick]

I'm talking about the hockey stick guy........

The IPCC won the award, not Mann.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The IPCC won the award, not Mann.

I know......can you believe that POS was claiming that he was a Nobel Laureate?