Friday, December 4, 2020
Home Left Column Climate Skeptics on 'historic' UN treaty: 'Does this mean we never have...

Climate Skeptics on ‘historic’ UN treaty: ‘Does this mean we never have to hear about ‘solving’ global warming again!?’

-

Related Links: 

Only 12 Months To Save The World (Again)! – Already plans are being drawn up for the next UN jamboree in Morocco!

Praise be to the — UN!? UN Climate Summit Healed The Climate?!

UN climate summit deal Dec. 12, 2015: ‘The Day Science Died’

Physicist: ‘Stunning scientific illiteracy behind the Paris 2 °C target’ – ‘ill-defined, meaningless, inconsequential’

Former NASA lead ‘global warming’ scientist James Hansen on UN summit: ‘It’s a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit’

No Trick’s Zone’s Pierre Gosselin: ‘New UN ‘Historical Draft’ Is Delusional …Will Go Down In History As Certificate Of Madness – Reading it I couldn’t help but think this is a document of madness. Global temperature cannot be regulated. It’s delusional to think so. Unless you’re going to make money from it, why would anyone want to sign it and ensure a place in history’s Laughing Stock Hall of Fame?’

Morano in USA Today OpEd: Thinking UN accords can control the climate is ‘bordering on belief in witchcraft’

Paris climate change deal will not stop polar bears dying due to THICK ice in spring – “Thick spring ice due to natural causes is currently the single biggest threat to polar bears. Notdeclining summer sea ice – thick spring ice.”

 

Climate Negotiators Hail ‘Historic’ Paris Draft Agreement

Flashback 2007: ‘Global warming’ will ‘reduce the length of a day’ – ‘Make Earth spin faster’

2015 Harvard U. Study: ‘Climate change’ means days are getting longer – Slowing Earth’s rotation – Due to ‘water from shrinking glaciers slowing Earth’s rotation’

Financial Times Features Premiere: ‘Morano premiered his new climate-sceptic documentary Climate Hustle’ – Climate activists target sceptics in Paris campaign

John Kerry admits at UN summit that US emissions cuts accomplish nothing for climate – ‘Still wouldn’t be enough to offset’ rest of world

Satellites to police gas emissions

2015 will likely end as the least-deadly tornado year on record in U.S.

Alec Baldwin at climate summit in Paris: ‘Here I am, staying in a fancy hotel, going out to dinner with my friends, hanging out’

Billions of dollars on irrelevant pledges that have nothing to do with the climate – Everything about Climate Fear is just PR

Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth Continues On Last Day Of UN Climate Summit

NYT: ‘Global warming’ is even impacting the DEAD! – UN climate deal needed to ‘save frozen mummies’

#

Protesters, police, chaos! Climate Hustle ‘staged its triumphant world premiere’ – ‘Police cordoned off the road’ – Exclusive Video/Photos

Breitbart Review: ‘Climate Hustle is dynamite’ – ‘The Perfect Antidote To Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth’

National Review Gives Two Thumbs Up: ‘Climate Hustle, a brutal and extremely funny takedown of the science behind global warming’ – ‘Committee for a Constructive

2304 COMMENTS

  1. Oh to dream. But of course it doesn’t mean that. It’s always been about leftist watermelon politics, reds posing as harmless environmentally concerned “greens”. So, no, it doesn’t mean anything of the sort.

  2. It is amazing how a hoax like this can capture the attention of so many people in high places. It goes to show the power of frighting people into turning control of their lives in the hopes of gaining security. That is what socialism offers though it never can deliver. It is contrary to human nature; human nature that is a part of the very people advocating it.

    • One indisputable fact, the champions of the planet left the mother of all historic carbon footprints that may never be rivaled. So it’s hard to take them serious. It looks like it was all about money and power. Our money and their power..

        • Of course. The benefactors are those individuals who control unproductive populations. The term ‘wealth’ used by these scammers is marxspeak for what we know as productive earnings and assets. To be a ‘wealth’ recipient one must control a population with a proven history of non-productivity or be integrated in the cash flow of the wealth transfer. Poor people anywhere will not benefit from any of this. At least they can still talk about the weather.

          • That’s a load of crap. My PERSONAL problem is that AWG is a socialist PLOT to undermine capitalism, steal its productivity, re-distribute the wealth created by capitalism to the world, and then leave capitalism discredited because, “look how it failed”. And anyone with a BRAIN can see this.

            If they want to do all that….then WHY can’t they do democratically? Because they CAN’T do it democratically if they tell the truth…so instead o they disguise their ambitions by taking a STUPID climate theory, cloaking it in “science”, and then duping YOUR dumb a$$ with it.

      • Yes – THe idea of this global warming is to pass the world wide carbon tax – taking trillions and trillions from economies, while China, India, mexico are all exempt – who are the greatest ecodisaster countries on the planet.
        unbelievable how stupid so many are for not putting 2+2 together.

          • I believe this scam will be worth trillions, not billions to them in the long run if they pull this off. It’s sad we don’t have more real scientists speaking out about how falsifying data (NOAA) is FRAUD, not “settled science”.

              • What biases? You calibrate you instruments. You prove your calibration method. You determine your error margin and you include this in your calculations. None of which have been done by the warmists. What they have done is to take urban heat island readings and use ‘adjustment’ curves to ensure that all readings say the same thing. Of course urban heat island readings have gone up over the decades, and we have been warming out of the LIA. It’s a lot of very poor science and very poor understanding of technology.

                If your instruments don’t say what you expect them to say then you check your science.

                • I had one prime example of global warming that was eventually debunked. It seems one of the major temperature sensing sites in “Ohio” was originally out in the open (early 1800’s) but a town grew up around the site and buildings and roads etc grew up alongside this temperature sensing site. A Power Transformer was placed next to it in the mid 1950’s which REALLY heated up the site and in retrospect, data showed the sudden rise in collected data but it was never investigated. It was just ASSUMED that it was a natural change.

                    • The odd thing is that when you add the sites that show an urban heat island effect to the sites currently used by the USCN, the amount of warming – as computed by NASA and the NOAA goes DOWN. Not up as you Denialists think.

                      But then the Denialists don’t exist in the reality based community.

                    • If it was the sun then the upper atmosphere would be warming and not cooling as it is doing), and it would have been noticed by the satellites and ground stations that are constantly monitoring the sun.

                      Sorry boy, but it’s only the sun in mentally diseased minds.

                    • It’s the sunspot activity, read about the Maunder minimum, coming again soon. Liberals are the ones with diseased minds.

                    • And what happens when this speculated Maunder Minimum is over, and global temperatures stop being artificially depressed?

                      The last Maunder Minimum lasted 70 years. This would mean that even if the earth’s temperatures were depressed by a 1’C cooling, in 2170, the temperatures which will then be 3’C warmer than now, will rapidly rise another 2 to 3’C over period in which the new Maunder period exits.

                      So Global Average temperatures will have risen by about 6’C by 2170, and the earth will be committed to another 6’C warming after that due to the thermal inertia of the oceans and residency time of CO2.

                      8’C is a human extinction level event.

                    • Since climate is defined as the average weather over a 30 year period, The “theory” doesn’t apply to the last 18 years because the last 18 years isn’t climate. It is weather.

                      But over the last 18 years the temperature has risen quite substantially.

                    • Currently, global average Temperatures are the highest they have ever been in the last 120,000 years.

                    • Not very bright are you? What is the air density at higher altitudes? What is the normal temperature at 60,000 feet? What relation is there to temperature and density of the air at high altitude? Get back to me when you have the answer genius.

                    • Air density is a function of altitude. You omit an altitude so your question is incomplete and can not be answered.

                      Basically you asked “How long is a piece of string.”

                      “What is the normal temperature at 60,000 feet?” – Ken the Kook

                      About -57’C This temperature is pretty much static through the tropopause.

                      Atmospheric density drops with this function for the lower 80 km of the atmosphere d = d0 x 10E(-3*m/50,000)

                      Where d0 is surface density, d is density at altitude and m is the altitude in meters.

                    • I’ve always wondered whether Neanderthal man blamed the invention of fire for the demise of his wonderful, ice-covered world, with its abundance of wooley mammoths and other necessities. Wow… warming sure ruined that planet, didn’t it!

                      If “climate change” fools ever looked at the geologic and fossil record…

                    • The ice ages are cause by subtle, long term variations in thee earth’s orbit and rotational inclination to the ecliptic.

                      If you want to find out what a cave man thinks of this, then ask any Republican.

                    • Tell us, When did the “subtle, long term variations in thee earth’s orbit and rotational inclination to the ecliptic.” …stop, or stop effecting climate …so now we can be sure any fluctuations over a selected short term are because of humans?

                    • They have always and will always effect the Earth’s climate.

                      But since they operate on time scales of 100,000 years, 25,000 years, 160,000 years, etc, they haven’t had any significant effect over the last 200 years.

                      My goodness you are silly.

                    • “Somehow, they managed to calculate Earth’s temperature within 0.01
                      degrees – even though they had no temperature data for about half of the
                      land surface, including none in Greenland and very little in Africa or
                      Antarctica.”

                  • HUNDREDS OF THE NOAA TEMP SITES ARE POORLY MAINTAINED
                    PLACED IN ASPHALT PARKING LOTS , NEAR AC EXHAUSTS
                    AND NEAR AIRPORT RUNWAYS WHERE JET EXHAUST BLOWS PAST
                    THEM 100 TIMES A DAY .

                    THEY ARE ALSO NOT EVENLY DISTRIBUTED , ESPECIALLY IN OTHER COUNTRIES .

                    THEY CLAIM TO HAVE COMPENSATED FOR THESE DISCREPANCIES ,
                    BUT HOW DO YOU DO THAT ? MAKE UP NUMBERS ?

                    THIS IS THE DATA THEY USE TO SAY THE EARTH IS WARMING AND THAT 2014 WAS THE HOTTEST ON RECORD .

                    THE SATELLITE DATA IS ACCURATE , CONSISTENT & EVENLY DISTRIBUTED . IT SAYS WE ARE NOT WARMING & THE ICE CAPS AGREE .

                    SO WHY DO THE WARMISTS CHOOSE KNOWN FAULTY DATA THAT IS BASED ON 1940’s TECHNOLOGY WHEN ACCURATE MODERN DATA COLLECTION IS AVAILABLE ?

                    THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN SCIENCE OR EVEN THE TRUTH
                    AND THE SATELLITES ARE NOT GIVING THEM THE AMMUNITION THEY WANT .

                • With satellites you have to compensate for time of day drift, orbital shifts, orbital decay, and weather you are over open ocean, over clouds, over ice, instrument calibration, inter-instrument bias, as well as breaks in the data and a host of other factors.

                  Gores plan to measure the earth’s temperature from L1 where the earth is always fully lit by the sun was a spectacularly good idea.

                  ,

                    • The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, “Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush,” quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Republican Karl Rove):

                      The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

                    • Wow, you sound like you are reading a script from an SNL “Deep Thoughts” skit. And if you believe that taxing carbon will manage the worlds’ climate you have really moved out of reality.

                    • The quote from Karl Rove shows how well he knows you, and how easily you are manipulated by him and others.

                      Sucker……………..

                    • Touche.
                      I’m also worried that we actually do some of the hare-brained things they demand and it actually WORKS!
                      But it’s already cooling, so we are slammed into another ice age.
                      Hubris, thy name is climate scientist.

                    • The optimum temperature is the temperature that the biosphere has evolved to survive in.

                      That temperature wold be the temperature of the pre-industrial era.

                    • My response gives you the ability to answer your question accurate to 3 significant digits.

                      Are you incompetent and unable to do it yourself? Or are you too stupid to do it yourself?

                      Global Temps have risen 1’C over the last 50 years.

                    • Your globull warming graph doesn’t intimidate me zealot. Tell me assshole, I’m too stupid to figure it out. What’s the perfect temperature?

                  • IT JUST MIGHT SHOCK YOU TO DISCOVER THAT INFRARED LASERS GO THROUGH CLOUDS & ICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE COLD .

                    ALL OF THE VARIABLES YOU MENTION ARE PRECISELY COMPENSATED
                    FOR BY COMPUTERS . LAND BASED READINGS ARE STILL CRAP BY COMPARISON

                    GORE’s IDEA IS ONLY GOOD IF YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO IGNORE THE
                    HALF OF THE DATA THAT DISAGREES WITH YOU . SPECTACULAR !

                    SHOOTING THE MESSENGER IS DISHONESTY AT IT’S FINEST
                    AND YOU HAVE QUITE AN AIM SIR .

                    • Hey DUMMY! Stop with the all CAPS!!! Nobody wants to read your comments like that – regardless of the content it is unreadable. Do you understand this?

                    • IT IS ONLY AN ATTEMPT TO WEED OUT PICKY PEOPLE .
                      APPARENTLY , IT ISN’T WORKING .

                      I MEAN SERIOUSLY , I READ YOURS .
                      IS NAME CALLING REALLY APPROPRIATE ?

                      HOW ABOUT YOU TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC ?

                • Do you really think they’re bothered if their calculations match up or not? They’re simply not bovvered as long as they have a method to completely control our lives. We ‘skeptics’ can argue blue in the face about the facts, but if we’re going to get this noose off our necks we need to indict their fraud, but as they own the judicial system that’s never going to happen. So we’re screwed basically.

                • Please add the probes that do not exist, where they extrapolate data from one place and guess about the temperature in another.

                  Science has nothing to do with the political agenda of warming. You learn in third grade about the scientific method and one is supposed to follow the data, not cram the data into one’s hypothesis. But if they did that, whoops, there goes the grant monies.

                • You would also admit that although we’d like to collect data for current reasons and to have them for study in the future, making bold statements that cost trillions on this tiny bit of reliable data is crazy.
                  Theory, data, results.
                  They’ve got it all turned around, don’t they?
                  Also, given the subject at hand, isn’t the climate always either heating or cooling? Volcanoes explode, A World War occurs. An oil field is set alight. I thought everything of real interest is at least a sine curve in complexity, didn’t you? Nothing in nature is a linear relationship. It always reaches a point of inflection and heads back the other way.
                  I wonder if Obama knows what a sine curve even is?
                  Given all the ups and downs of climate since mankind has been here, perhaps the question being asked should be “is the climate today similar to any point between the max and min of historical knowledge?”
                  Trees may not give evidence, because we don’t understand them as well as some cranks wish we did.

              • Well, the first thing is you document very thoroughly exactly what it is you are adjusting and why. You explain why your calibration values were wrong and why you have to “adjust” the temperature readings. You subject those rationale to real peer review, not just review of those who already agree with you.

                What this looks like is that the conclusion (global warming) has been reached and that the data needs to be adjusted to align with the conclusion.

                    • Well, it will sure make Gore and Obama and a few hundred of their best political buddies richer than hell and add multiple layers of political control on us peons.

                    • No, I think that taxing carbon and pricing it at a level that reflects the environmental damage it is causing when burned, will send a signal to carbon consumers to find ways to emit less.

                      And in so doing their actions will alter emission levels, and put a damper on Global Warming.

                    • 2000 years ago we did not have fossil fuels to burn to keep warm or fuel our air conditioners. True modern science allows people to live where they want to because modern technology allows for us to warm or cool our living environment – unlike 2000 years ago

                    • Vendicar – why do you hate plants so much? Plants need CO2 to BREATHE – why would you deny the very thing that plants need to live as if it is a pollutant? Furthermore, plants EXHALE OXYGEN so if you reduce plant life on this planet by reducing CO2 you WILL reduce oxygen as well. The climate extremists hate plants as well as people apparently!

                    • INTERESTING .
                      SO WHEN DO YOU THINK PEOPLE INVENT THE BUILDING ?
                      HOW ABOUT CITIES ?

                      CAN YOU REALLY STOP CLIMATE CHANGE BY MOVING ?

                      I THOUGHT THEY DIDN’T HAVE CARS OR FACTORIES BACK THEN
                      SO WHY WOULD THEIR CLIMATE HAVE CHANGED ?

                • But even a biased temperature instrument will record a change to be correct. The absolute temperature should be meaningless when looking at changes. However, the government will take an instrument’s re-baselining to be THE change. So, my temperature was 1 degree off and I recalibrate, the government says “OMG temperature changed by 1 degree!” Well, no it didn’t. My instrument’s readings did, but they did across the board. If we analyzed a common baseline’s temperature deltas, we would find nothing.

                  Future generations will look at us as flat earthers.

                  • WORK AT H OME$98/hour…A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h.You Can Check Here
                    dr….
                    ➤➤
                    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportMedia/GetPaid/$98hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

                  • Who’s “Us” white man?
                    Tonto was a cool dude. How did the Lone Ranger stay so CLEAN?
                    As usual, a very tiny group of unscrupulous dopes are lying to get their way. I have much experience with such. They will never admit to fudging anything. No, not even if burned at the stake. Not even on a trivial point.
                    We could try, though….

                • So it’s all a grand conspiracy is it?

                  I guess the Biologists must be in on it because they see species migrating north and up mountain slopes to better cope with rising temps.

                  And the glaciologists must be in on it for observing the recent reality that virtually all of the worlds mountain glaciers are melting.

                  And the Physicists, and the Chemists, and everyone all down to the Candle Stick Maker and the Baker.

                  But not the pure as snow, heaven sent Denialist crank.

                  • Show me a biologist who is also a climate scientist. How would a biologist now that what he is observing is due to man-made warming, or a natural long-term cycle of solar storms? How would a biologist know that the warming is due to greenhouse effects and would continue forever instead of some natural cycle of warming to cooling to warming to cooling…..?
                    Did the glaciers you’re referring to exist before the last ice age? Were the glaciers there since the beginning of time? Why wouldn’t the glaciers melt after the last ice age and why wouldn’t they be melting now if the temps are now warmer than during the ice age?
                    Are you assuming that world temps have remained constant throughout earth’s history? Seems to me that the only constant in earth’s temps and climate is that the earth’s temps and climate are always changing.
                    So, ah, maybe it’s you who is the crank and not the skeptics of man-made climate change.

                    • “Show me a biologist who is also a climate scientist.” – SillyJimbo

                      So what you are trying to say is that a biologist can’t report his/her observations
                      that animals are slowly migrating north-wared, and up mountain slopes because they can’t predict the weather.

                      Isn’t that saying that you can’t report that the price of your lunch has gone up because you can’t predict the value of the stock market?

                      You silly little, Kookie, Kook.

                    • Google thinks that “north-wared” is a word.

                      Let me correct and repost so that your tiny little brain does not have the fatal distraction.

                      “Show me a biologist who is also a climate scientist.” – SillyJimbo

                      So what you are trying to say is that a biologist can’t report his/her observations
                      that animals are slowly migrating northward, and up mountain slopes because they can’t predict the weather.

                      Isn’t that saying that you can’t report that the price of your lunch has gone up because you can’t predict the value of the stock market?

                      You silly little, Kookie, Kook.

                    • Go ahead and buy your property in Alaska – I’ll invest in property closer to the equator thanks because what you climate extremists are in fact doing is obscuring the real facts that the biggest danger to life on this planet is COOLING and that comes from a quiet sun which some scientists are now predicting to begin in the year 2020.

                    • “Are you assuming that world temps have remained constant throughout earth’s history?” – SillyJimbo

                      You sooooooo desperately want it to be something other than CO2, so you desperately grasp at any failed argument you can in order to maintain your “it’s not CO2” delusion.

                      This is why you Uneducated, Luddite Denialists are the laughing stock of the entire world.

                    • Laughing stock of the entire world? That would be You & your ilk who seek to repress any who question of your conjecture of global warming.

                    • You denialists are right up there with the UFOlogists and the amature Bigfoot Paleontologists.

                      The primary difference is that you don’t have the intellectual capacity of the other two, your life is full of nothing but whining and moaning.

                      Most Warming Denialists have lost the ability to even perform simple addition and subtraction.

                    • If you’re capable, consider becoming proficient in calculus and statistics. Analysis of variance should be a tool you might find useful. There is a theory commonly called the Chaos Theory you may find interesting. Its explores what happens when there are an infinity of variables.
                      I’m talking serious science, not the drivel put out there by the emotionally unstable. If you are not capable of grasping the afore mentioned subjects, sit down & shut up.

                    • Oh no you don’t. YOU birds are the denialists. You deny climate change. You claim the climate is only warming more and more. That is the opposite of what a climate change believer believes, in fact knows from observations, i.e., that the climate warms and cools.

                    • The weather has had extremes in past history *before* fossil fuels were burned and even before humans walked the earth – THAT IS BECAUSE OUR CLIMATE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMANS YOU IMBECILE

                    • AN UNEDUCATED PERSON WOULD BLAME CLIMATE CHANGE ON
                      SOMETHING THAT IS NATURAL , ESSENTIAL AND ONLY 0.04 % OF
                      THE ATMOSPHERE .

                    • We’ll see what future history says of that matter.

                      When unbiased and un-tampered temperature data shows it’s actually getting warmer everywhere on Earth, then I will start to take global warming seriously. Until then you might as well try and convince me Halley’s Comet is going to wipe us out. I can make a computer model predict anything you want.

                      In the meantime, CO2 is not going to destroy our world. This is not Mars…it is not a significant segment of the atmosphere. The concept is laughable. The magnetic pole reversal won’t wipe us out, either. Same for alleged acid rain, alleged ozone holes, and alleged gamma ray bursts. The universe is a huge scary place but we don’t have to behave as if we are frightened children, clinging to our mum’s leg.

                      What we should do is work together to eliminate wanton pollution because we want to and it’s the right thing to do. Not because the sky is falling or there’s a politically-correct pistol to out head. While we are at it, we should love and respect each other more, cure cancer and AIDS, end poverty and homelessness, feed the hungry, and treat the sick and injured. None of these struggles are new or unfounded. How does global warming/climate change truly fit into this mix, hmmmmm?

                    • There also one constant: there will always be people of limited intelligence who grab onto an idea and try to make that idea fact.

                    • I din’t kill that man officer. People have died of unknown causes throughout history and despite the fact that all the evidence points to me, that you have a film of me shooting him, and that I have no way theory that explains how else he died, you still have no evidence that I did it.

                      The Denialist argument in a nutshell.

                    • TROUBLE IS , THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE FOR AGW IS
                      CIRCUMSTANTIAL , INCOMPLETE , MISLEADING OR PROVABLY FALSIFIED .

                      IF THIS WERE A MURDER TRIAL , IT WOULD BE THROWN OUT OF COURT
                      EVEN THOUGH 97% OF THE PEOPLE WHO READ THE ENQUIRER THINK HE’S GUILTY .

                    • I hate your CAPS crusade: there is a decorum and standards on the internet just like everywhere else. Whether you chose to believe or adhere or not, ALL CAPS is construed as angry or childish, whiny shouting.

                      It’s unfortunate that your repeated middle finger to the internet beleaguers your otherwise excellent point. That’s the perfect way to think about this whole situation.

                    • YOU ARE THE ONE WITH YOUR SHORTS IN A WAD .
                      YOU ARE THE ONE WHINING THROUGH YOUR ETIQUETTE CRUSADE .

                      I HAVE NOT TOLD YOU HOW TO POST .
                      HOW ABOUT GROWING UP & POSTING SOMETHING RELEVANT ?

                      ALL I WANT IS AN INTELLIGENT REPLY .

                      HERE IS A TOPIC REMINDER FOR YOU :
                      Climate Skeptics on ‘historic’ UN treaty:

                    • ˙ǝɔıoɥɔ ɹnoʎ sı ʇı ʇnq ‘ǝɯɐɥs ɐ sı ʇɐɥʇ ʞuıɥʇ oʇ uǝddɐɥ ı ˙ʎןsnoıɹǝs noʎ ǝʞɐʇ puɐ sʇuǝɯɯoɔ ɹnoʎ pɐǝɹ ןןıʍ ǝןdoǝd ɹǝʍǝɟ ˙ʇı pɐǝɹ pןnoɔ oɥʍ ǝןdoǝd ʇsoɯ oʇ ǝןqɐʇdǝɔɔɐ ʇou sı ʇɐɥʇ ɹǝuuɐɯ ɐ uı sʇuıod ʇuǝןןǝɔxǝ ǝsıʍɹǝɥʇo ɹnoʎ buıbɐʞɔɐd ʎq ʇooɟ ǝɥʇ uı ɟןǝsɹnoʎ buıʇooɥs ǝɹ,noʎ ʍoɥ pǝuıɐןdxǝ ı ˙ʎןdǝɹ ʎuıɥʍ-uou ‘ʇuǝbıןןǝʇuı uɐ noʎ ǝʌɐb ı

                      I can be daring and childishly challenge conventions, too.

                    • I AM NOT THE ONE STAMPING MY FOOT & WAVING
                      THE FLAG OF NIT-PICKY INTOLERANCE .

                      YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF .
                      YOU ALREADY ADMITTED THAT I HAD “AN EXCELLENT POINT” .
                      I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR EXCELLENT POINT BUT ALL YOU
                      SEEM TO BE ABLE TO DO IS WRITE UPSIDE DOWN .

                      NOT REALLY A GOOD SUBSTITUTE FOR INTELLIGENCE IN MY BOOK
                      BUT IF THAT AND WHINING IS ALL YOU’VE GOT , PERHAPS I
                      WAS MISTAKEN TO EXPECT SOMETHING MORE .

                    • I already made my point but I will reiterate it for your benefit: You’re doing yourself and your opinions a disservice by your addiction to caps lock. What you call whining I call pointing out how the world works. Most people are going to just tune you out because your post looks like verbal diarrhea or spam.

                    • WELL THERE’S YOUR PROBLEM .
                      YOU THINK YOU SPEAK FOR EVERYONE .

                      MY POSTS ARE WRITTEN FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
                      ACCEPTING OF OTHERS AND SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES .

                      YOU ARE EXACTLY WHO I WISH TO AVOID .
                      PLEASE DO NOT READ MY POSTS , THEY ARE NOT FOR YOU .

                    • Well, at least the feeling is mutual. The fact is, I do speak for everyone, at least according to your comment history. You have posted more comments demanding people ignore your passive-aggressive Caps Lock addiction than actual fruitful and poignant ideas.
                      I gave you the benefit of the doubt, as I would anyone whose breath always is rank or who never showers and who can’t smell him or herself. The fact is, you do realize you smell, and try to justify it by promoting it as a sensible filter of who is truly accepting of you and who isn’t. By extension, your Caps crusade makes perfect sense as you seem to think the Middle ages were a great time to be alive, with no running water and a simpler alphabet with which to express yourself. You’re right: we’re not going to be friends.

                    • You have to adjust your analogy such that the officer claims that this one alleged killer will be more responsible than other potential causes for the deaths of all the other people in the future.

                    • WORK AT H OME$98/hour…A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h.You Can Check Here
                      dr……
                      ➤➤
                      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportMedia/GetPaid/$98hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

                    • I MADE £13,877 PER HOUR LAST WEEK
                      SELLING CARBON CREDITS AT HOME!!!1111

                      GO TO ALGORECLIMATESCAM.COM FOR ALL THE DETAILS!

                  • What about the satellite pics that show there is MORE ice in the Antarctic than at any time since they started monitoring it? The ice is INCREASING, climate fool.

                    What about the fact that the global temps have not increased in nearly twenty years? You are a climate fool.

                    • No satellite pics show such a thing.

                      There has been an increase in the ocean ice cover around the Antarctic, but this thin layer of ice has been extended primarily because the surface waters of the ocean are now less salty due to fresh water runoff from the antarctic ice pack, which is shrinking by 50 to 100 square kilometers per year.

                    • I seem to remember for the last couple of years climate “scientists” predicted an increase in tropical storms and hurricanes – but we ended up with the lowest activity for hurricanes in at least 20 years.. HAHAHAHAHA

                  • GLACIERS HAVE MELTED IN THE PAST .
                    SOME ARE GROWING TODAY AS ARE BOTH OF THE ICE CAPS .

                    WHAT IS COMPLETELY SILLY IS TO BLAME ALL OF THIS ON
                    1/100 OF A % INCREASE IN CO2 OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS .

                    CLIMATE ALWAYS HAS CHANGED & IT ALWAYS WILL .
                    THE TRULY CRAZY PEOPLE ARE THE ONES WHO THINK THEY CAN STOP IT .
                    ( THAT WOULD BE YOU )

                  • We will have to forgive venidcar — he is a true warmist, yet they are all the same in their belief that things NEVER change, see? It is always our fault. We almighty humans, who are nothing more than a small fart in the wind.

                    If it is warming, must be our fault. Can’t have happened before.Ever.

                • Of course, such documentation has been going on since the 1980s. All peer reviewed. You don’t know about any of it, and haven’t cared enough to learn about it. You’d rather just rant and dismiss it while staying ignorant.

              • How can there be bias in a temperature reading? It can only be a single value at any instant at a given place; are you saying those who compile the data have a bias and leave out data that doesn’t support that bias? That has been proven to happen, and is proof that Climate Change is a hoax!

                • I have a friend who is PRETTY HIGH UP in NOAA. From him I learned that his colleagues all feel empowered to make or break rules because they have IQ’s over 160. Facts are ignored or manipulated at NOAA. NASA, and all other government agencies think pretty much the same way and they all poo paa each others data.

                    • I take your response as a reflection of your ignorance and you never having worked in government. I had a 30 year career and can say that in my agency none of my peers or supervisors had the “I can do whatever I want” attitude, at least none that didn’t eventually get terminated for doing whatever they wanted.

                    • I had in mind IRS’ Lib, Lois Lerner, admitting targeting Conservatives, yet no conviction or jail time, Al Gore committing fund-raising felonies while saying “No controlling legal authority”, Bill Clinton saying, “It depends on what the meaning of the word is is” and his wife saying, “What difference at this point does it make?” My personal encounters with you government types show you to be almost universally rude, arrogant and acting like little Hitlers, inflicting pain upon a powerless public if you can just because you can. Your type are a joke, a cliche, a real-life stereotype of a government worker unable to compete in the free market and sheltered from firing by the government bureaucracy.

                      But by all means, puff out your little chest and tell us free-market workers that our lying eyes don’t see how you treat us. Example: I gave a federal supervisor an estimate for installing some electronics. He said he thought he could cover the expense from petty cash and to do the job. After the job was done he refused to pay on the grounds that no PO# was issued and the work was never authorized. ALL of them I have ever dealt with are that way, and their computer skills were non-existent. When my company proved by time/date stamping that three typists in a typing pool typed about 20 minutes PER WEEK, they were never fired for not working but merely transferred around. I’ve got a day’s worth of stories on your fellow government “workers”, nearly all bad.

                    • “I had in mind IRS’ Lib, Lois Lerner” – RLALiar

                      So why did you say “All government employees”.

                      You were knowingly lying when you made that claim. Thanks for publicly admitting that you are a liar.

                      I have never encountered a Republican who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual liar.

                    • Now the truth comes out. You are a communist, er, I mean, a democrat. That explains a lot. I agree with you that Republicans are scum; but, the democrats are brainwashed dolt communists.

                    • Reread my post, Venereal Disease the proven liar. I wrote, “My personal encounters with you government types show you to be almost
                      universally rude, arrogant and acting like little Hitlers, inflicting
                      pain upon a powerless public if you can just because you can.” I stand by my statement.

                      By the way, have you read that English translation of what the Chinese say about Climate Change yet? They agree with me that there’s no Climate Change and that you are a liar!

                    • Correct Eagle. You must consider today’s participation generation that has replaced you. They have no sense of history, could care less about it, and have been conditioned that world didn’t exist before there tiny little presence graced the planet. Hec, anyone born after 1979 probably has no idea who John Lennon is/was. Test it yourself.

                • Maybe the devil has re-painted the scale of your thermometer.

                  Maybe the Illuminati have infiltrated all of the thermometer makers in the world and replaced them with cybors who are under their control, and have been altering the worlds thermometers to show a false and accelerating warming over the last 200 years.

                  Or more likely.. The moon men are behind it all.

                  Koooooooook

                  • Hey, climate fool, don’t you realize that the temps on Mars and Venus have risen and decreased in lock step with the temps on Earth? That C02 that you are so scared of must be effecting the temps on Mars/Venus, too. It is the SUN that dictates the temps on our planet. You are a brainwashed communist fool.

                  • There’s been no warming for the last eighteen years, VD the Liar, which has even been acknowledged by you idiot Climate Change Believers who call that a “pause” in warming, but you can’t say why it happened, and none of your computer models predicted it. In fact none of your computer models have predicted ANY of the real-world temperatures, nor accounted for historical nor prehistorical temperatures.

                    I noticed you have never cited your education and personal experience in Climate Change; you are merely a liar who claims expertise, just like all the other Climate Change Believers.

                    TROLL ALERT! VD appears to not even have a job since he spends all his time posting lies about his faith in his religion, Climate Change.

                    • Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire.

                      There has been a lot of warming over that period as shown in this graph.

                      Why do you feel a need to lie about it?

                    • “but you can’t say why it happened, and none of your computer models predicted it.” – RLARetard

                      Predicted some mythical cooling that only appears in he polluted minds of denialists?

                      Sorry boy. But the models don’t model your ignorance.

                • Because instruments change, stations locations change, time of observation of the thermometers change, thermometers break and the data go uncollected for years, the one who reads the thermometers dies or get reassigned and no one takes his place for 10 or 30 years.

                  The transition from mercury to digital thermometers created a quantum jump in the readings. That’s a bias. How would you account for it?

                    • “That very inconsistency is what makes it unscientific.”

                      Mathematical methods have been developed to account for these changes, such as data homogenization. Are you familar with it?

                    • STILL no credentials, Davey? Since you have no actual knowledge but merely parrot whatever climate fertilizer other Believers feed you, future posts from you will be dismissed as the ravings of a cult Believer that they appear to be. Enjoy your religion of Climate Change, doofus, and keep the faith; dismissed!

                    • Sorry, no proof that is you, and despite some technical background, what you have done–IF you are David Appell–is at best speculative fiction based on the shaky research of others without ANY original work in climatology. Why don’t you write about travel through space, then pretend you’re an astronaut?

                      Example: If you wrote about “Global Warming Slowing Down?” you admitted that projected heating isn’t occurring as predicted, then speculate that it MIGHT be in the oceans! You describe NO facts, NO methodology, NO procedures for reaching your conclusions, all based on unfounded assumptions.

                      One big reason I think you are lying about your background is you spend too much time defending Climate Change on this little public forum; just what is it you do for money that someone pays you for? The real researchers don’t have time to copy and paste your meaningless graphs on every internet article on Climate Change, which seem to be well below the level of scholarly achievement I would expect of someone with David Appell’s alleged background. By the way, I found nothing about you from your alma mater; are you sure you claimed the correct school?

                      You remind me of Jon Lovitz on SNL in his role as The Liar; “Yeah, that’s the ticket!”

                    • I don’t do research. I write about the science done by others. And I do not write for researchers, or scholarly readers. You don’t seem to understand at all what science writers actually do or who their audience is.

                    • I understand quite well what you do. You are a pimp, an advertising agent for the Climate Change Fraud, and have no actual knowledge nor expertise of your own but merely parrot what you are told by your lying Climate Change Masters. Since you admit you have no expertise in climatology of your own, your opinions about it are worthless. Begone, pimp; you only add noise, not knowledge. Dismissed!

                    • I’m a journalist and a writer. I write about climate science in the most honest and accurate way I can. I have 3 degrees in physics, so know a lot about the science.

                      You just don’t like the science’s results, and you think personally attacking me will someone change those results.

                      It won’t. Typical denier tactic.

                • “…and is proof that Climate Change is a hoax!”

                  At this point, this is about the dumbest statement imaginable.

                  Global warming is required by the laws of physics. Just because you don’t know these laws doesn’t make it a hoax — many of us *DO* understand the physics….

                  • Here is what the chief scientist at RSS systems, that produces the RSS satellite record, has to say about the satellite record.

                    A similar, but stronger case can be made using
                    surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than
                    satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the
                    various satellite datasets do!).

                    The UAH data set is in good agreement with the surface record.

                    • Problem is that there is nothing special about the ’81-’10 average they are using as a baseline. It’s completely arbitrary, and ignores all of the cooling that was seen in the 1960s and 1970s. This average doesn’t represent Earth’s ‘perfect temperature’…but we are meant to think it does.

                      Why not use the temperature average of, say…1681-1710?? Or 1801-1830? Or 1835-1864?

                    • “Problem is that there is nothing special about the ’81-’10 average they are using as a baseline. It’s completely arbitrary, and ignores all of the cooling that was seen in the 1960s and 1970s.”

                      It is a bit difficult for the satellite record to use a baseline that is not part of the satellite record which essentially started in 1979.

                      If you can find a way to extend the satellite record to a date that is earlier than 1979, then please let us know.

                      As for the baseline period, it defines the zero point for the anomaly of course. It changes the scale on the left, but of course doesn’t alter the shape of the graf.

                      I learned that in grade 6.

                      Why didn’t you?

                    • But, but…I thought satellite data wasn’t worth a damn and surface temperatures are ‘where it’s at’??

                      This period is still no less arbitrary than any other 30 year period in the planet’s 4.6B year history. You are high on snark, but low on substance…as usual. Are you really saying that this period is somehow magical because it is the one that’s MOST EASILY GRAPHED??

                      Stretch it back another 30 years and the shape of the graph flattens considerably.

                    • You are right. The satellite record is very poor since it is obtained by weather satellites that were designed to provide weather data and not long term climate observations.

                      Satellites don’t measure surface temperatures for example, and the ones in service now measure something – they refer to it as a temperature – through a range of atmosphere that is around than 10 km thick centered at around 4 km in altitude.

                    • “This period is still no less arbitrary than any other 30 year period in the planet’s 4.6B year history.” – A.Ckook

                      Exactly and that is why your family doctor asks you about your childhood experiences when you get a cold. All time intervals are equally arbitrary.

                      My goodness you are stupid.

              • Demand full and complete publishing and access on the Internet to all global science measurements, data and models that receive a dime of public funding – without exception – in raw data form, along with the biases documented, to get to “adjusted data” etc. It’s what the folks at CERN do.

                Either the adjustments are acceptable and credible, or they’ll be blasted to pieces by Internet review.

                • All the information you foolishly demand is already available to you, on line.

                  Doesn’t that fact make you look like a fool?

                  Yes it does.

                  When are you denialist kooks going to start your data analysis? You have had over
                  30 years to do it.

                  So far you Mental Ward Patients haven’t managed to produce a single peer reviewed scientific report that supports your Kookie, Kookie, public assertions.

                  • I live in the city. Every day I drive to country. Currently it is winter. When I leave the City it is -1C. When I arrive at my destination 5 km from the city it is usually -3, -4C. At the entrance to my yard there is a deposit box for carbon footprint. I put 20.00 in that box every day and although I fell pillaged on one hand and gratified on the other (saving the planet through my pocket book you know)
                    the temperature refuses to budge. I know, I know. Auto makers are in the pockets of the oil companies to produce false readings on their vehicles. Say’s it is -4 but it isn’t, right??

                    • For me today is forecast to have a high of 60’F, when the typical temp for this day of the year is 34’F

                      Not bad for Dec 14.

                      So far, the fall has been exceptionally and anomalously warm.

                      My guess is that the GISSTemp anomaly for last month will come to be in the mid 90’s, making 2015 by far the warmest year ever recorded.

                • “Either the adjustments are acceptable and credible, or they’ll be blasted to pieces by Internet review.”

                  The Internet — whoever that’s supposed to be — does not have the expertise to make such judgements.

              • True enough, but recently NOAA actually put out the results of a study which showed that contrary to popular belief, the world’s forests are replenishing and growing greener, healthier, more expansive and the animals which live there are multiplying in numbers and are healthier than they’ve been in decades. The reason they state is CO2.
                As an added thought: when Al Gore was born there were around 6 or 7 thousand polar bears. Currently, there are over 30,000. Maybe, with the so called loss of the ice and their aquatic food sources, they’ve taken a liking to broccoli. Something’s sure helping them grow!

              • I have yet to see anyone prove global warming without adjusting the data. Fact is the temp has been cooling over the past 35 years and it screws their plan without making adjustments. Small minds believe idiots like Obama cause they are the same small minds that voted for the liar and thief.

              • “How would you remove those biases?” – DavidAppell

                For the surface temperature measured by ground stations I would use the Berkeley Earth method or something similar.

                For the satellite data, I wouldn’t even try The number of corrections is so enormous that it isn’t possible IMO to produce any meaningful trends.

                A targeted satellite mission needs to be launched to do that.

                • “For the surface temperature measured by ground stations I would use the Berkeley Earth method or something similar.”

                  Berkeley Earth uses very similar techniques as everyone else to account for biases. That’s why their results agree with everyone else’s.

                  You might be right about the satellites.

                  • Berkeley Earth isn’t necessarily better but it is substantively cleaner than the other methods used.

                    Denialists ignorantly whine about adjustments to the raw data. Berkeley earth doesn’t do that and treats each station record as an independent data set – with some filling for missing data on occasion.

                    So with Berkeley Earth the Denialists have nothing to whine about.

                    That is why they ignore the reconstruction.

                    But since the Berkeley Earth reconstruction is nearly identical to all the others, it tells you that the other methods used in the other reconstructions are valid, and that accusations made by the Denialists against the other reconstructions are nothing more than lies.

                    Lie, Lie, Lie.. That is what Denialists do.

              • Usually Denialists refer to scientists as “elites”, Now you call them “failures”.

                Please make up your minds guys. It makes you look like you will fabricate any non-truth and then whine about it.

                • Elitist failures. You know, the guys who are unlocking the secrets of life and the universe and inventing the drugs and machines and software that we all depend on, without which we’d all be back in the Dark Ages. Damned losers.

                  • The term “Ellite failue” reminds me of the term “do nothing dictator” that the same people use to refer to Obama.

                    It makes no sense but it gives the apes a target to throw their Republidung at.

                    • Every time you post your inanities, you detract from the sum of human knowledge. Naturally, Obama is your god. The vacuous worship the vacuous.

                • Typical climate cultists rambling. Your “Climate scientists” aren’t even real scientists and all of this BS fantasy crap will end when the sane finally purge in the insane commie trash from existence. Enjoy lying in your mass grave with the other vermin, kid.

                    • “with an agenda”.

                      You mean “with a doctor of science degree”.

                      Isn’t it interesting how closely the NOAA, NASA, Hadley Center, BEST and JMO temperature reconstructions match?

                      The Global surface Temperature anomaly is now at 1.0’C and rising.

                    • ❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
                      jbq..
                      ➤➤
                      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportNew/GetPaid/$98hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

                    • “10 Year moving average?” Just proves the point that Climate Science is the academic discipline of predicting the movement of statistical noise.

                    • Wait, you mean this chart is accurate? Then it shows temperatures in the 1700’s were, using standard deviations, about the same as they are today? Or not?? You do realize of course there were not accurate readings possible except for a few places in Europe, over 150 years ago? You do realize, we are coming out of a global cold spell that lasted until the 1800’s, right? You do realize we had periods much warmer than this in the distant past, like the Middle Ages, right? You do realize of course, the middle of the US was at alternate times covered in 1000 feet of ice, or lying deep beneath an inland sea? And you do realize all of the past shifts in global climate had NOTHING to do with CO 2, or indeed mankind at all? It’s all BS, but if you prefer to live in a fairy tale world, more power to you.

                    • During WWII the P-38 fighter could make it to Europe, but they flew in formation with a B-17 for navigation. One of these flights reached Greenland and the B-17 had problems and had to put down on the ice. The P-38 pilots had no choice and also landed. Several years ago a group went to Greenland, dug through 200 feet of ice. They disassembled a P-38 brought it up, reassembled it. It is named “Ice Queen”. So, are these idiots saying the oceans are shallower now due to all that ice accumulated since 1942?

                    • You can’t educate these bafoons The Devil is the father of all lies he cannot tell the truth! Does this sound like Obunghole and all his cronies

                    • Nope. You can’t educate Denialists. They are too brain dead and typically too old to be able to learn.

                    • Poor Eric. He just can’t figure out that glaciers flow like rivers to the sea, only very, very slow rivers.

                      Here is the Greenland melt anomaly map for 2012. Red = mundo melting.

                    • “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the DEAD.” Thomas Paine Does this discribe these looney or what? These looneys have an agenda we waste valuable time on liberal con men The likes of Al gore pot belly puke

                    • ❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
                      jbq.
                      ➤➤
                      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportNew/GetPaid/$98hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

                    • “Then it shows temperatures in the 1700’s were, using standard deviations, about the same as they are today? ” – DennisOhio

                      Sorry Dennis, but you are confusing potential error with the derived value.

                      Due to a lack of data it is possible temperatures in the 1700’s to be slightly cooler to 2.5’C cooler than present. But the most likely value is 1.7’C cooler than now.

                      It is laughable that you don’t know how to read a simple graph that contains error bars.

                    • what in the world does “possibly” and “most likely” mean in relation to limited data, and what pray tell is the confidence of a derived value when the governing equation isn’t known? (pssst – and you can’t use the derived result to prove the relation that is being postulated. That’s a mathematical circle-jerk) Put some meat behind the statement, since you seem to be the statistical expert here. Dennis is exactly and precisely correct.

                    • “You do realize, we are coming out of a global cold spell that lasted until the 1800’s, right?” – DennisOhio

                      Here is the data. I don’t see the global cold spell that you are referring to.

                      Perhaps you have been drinking heavily.

                    • Clearly you don’t know what a standard deviation is, or know how to read a graph.

                      You are pure ignorance Dennis.

                    • More government chart BULLSHYTE of “adjusted” numbers proving NOTHING because it’s ALL based on stations from less than 1% of the earth’s surface and almost totally ZERO in the Northern Climes of Alaska, Russia and China.
                      Now back to your basement and leggo toys moron.

                    • ❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
                      ng………
                      ➤➤
                      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportOnline/GetPaid/$98hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

                    • Also, even if that edited graph you provided was accurate, you can see it would still be within the lines of natural variability when considering past interglacials. That’s IF, mind you.

                    • Sorry boy, but from wherever you intend to zero emissions the little red dot is going to rise by about the same distance it has risen already and stay there for at least 1,000 years.

                      So if you zero’d global emissions of CO2 now, the temperature chart would
                      evolve as shown below.

                    • That didn’t answer my question. Did YOU edit that graph I sent you or did you find it somewhere? Because if you just went into Microsoft Paint and drew that red line, then guess what? I wouldn’t be able to take you seriously (and I doubt anybody else would either). Not like I could anyway, as I could never take an extremist like you who associates skeptics with Holocaust deniers seriously.

                    • “Denialist”?
                      You seem to be the one eager to ridicule and polarize those who don’t agree with you. Is that a universal trait of Alinskyites?

                    • Funny how the deniers are the ones that get fired from their jobs when they speak out yet you say roccotool has an issue with free speech. Maybe you should clean your own house before giving us a lecture on free speech.

                    • Deniers should not be fired. They should have a rope wrapped around their necks and be tossed out the nearest window.

                      Their crime. Treason against nature and man.

                    • Please. Regardless of how much you yell and make fun the science ISN’T settled. Now that doesn’t mean we want to pour oil in the rivers and let my car run all night in the driveway while I sleep, but it also doesn’t mean I want to give trillions to third world countries and democrats that have a financial interest in this scheme. As Kerry said what Obama agreed to in Paris won’t make a difference anyway.

                    • Sorry Child. The science has been settled since the mid 1800’s, and is confirmed billions of times a day, all over the world.

                      That is only a fraction of the extent of your stupidity.

                    • You have so little to go on that you need to jump right to name calling when challenged? Even weaker than I thought.

                    • Sorry Child. The science has been settled since the mid 1800’s, and is confirmed billions of times a day, all over the world.

                      That is only a fraction of the extent of your stupidity.

                    • That’s pretty funny given that your global communist friends want to arrest and prosecute anyone that doesn’t buy into their climate change scam. You aren’t even intelligent enough to make it as a useful idiot.

                    • Poor Pam. She just doesn’t exist in the reality based community.

                      Low sloping forehead, down turned eyes, older than most trees, exceptionally low IQ.

                      Truly a paragon of Republican thinking.

                    • You act like there are two groups of people. A SKEPTIC is any person who doubts catastrophic global warming due to humans. “Denier” is an alarmist smear word that attempts to link skeptics to Holocaust deniers. Whatever side you are on in this debate, comparing anyone to Holocaust deniers is scandalous. But, based on our previous interactions, I doubt you even care. You’re not just opinionated…you’re a dangerous, illogical alarmist.

                      Even if you don’t believe it, I am an environmentalist. I fully support protection of endangered species, sustainable hunting/fishing, protection of critical habitat, prevention of habitat alteration, etc. But, like 1 in 5 environmentalists, I am an AGW skeptic. That is all I have to say. Goodbye, and have a nice day, y o u p s y c h o p a t h .

                    • When Skepticism Becomes Denial: The Unholy Alliance Between Science Denial Movements

                      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/when-skepticism-becomes-d_b_4215286.html

                      One of the most perplexing side effects of the Information Age is the means that it unfortunately grants to many pseudoscientific and science-denial movements to gain foothold and mutually strengthen numbers. Gone are the days when everyone would read or listen to common, well-researched, professionally written news.

                      Nowadays, everyone can withdraw into a self-imposed cocoon of “personalized” (and often erroneous) information. This includes big players such as Fox News, as Americans, Brits, and Australians hostage to the Murdoch empire know only too well.

                    • You act like there aren’t any skeptical scientists (or you believe in the 97% consensus). I really don’t care what David Bailey or John Borwein has to say. Like you and I, they are just more people with opinions.

                    • NO, they are just total morons like you PLUS being greedy for bigger and MORE government dollars stolen from the taxpayers.

                    • You are right Pam. The world can’t be warming because your taxes are too high.

                      Get a better Job… Loser.

                    • Well, when there is only one acceptable view to hold, and not holding
                      that view leads to unemployment, you have to question things just a
                      little bit chief.

                • According to scientists in the 1970’s and early 1980’s we were entering an extended global cooling period. Where they wrong then or are they wrong now. Even your high patron saint of kilowatt usage and globull warming Algore said ten years ago we would be kaput by now and it would be too late. Wasn’t he wrong then sparky. You people are so gullible. You are either in on the scam or complete imbeciles!

                    • http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

                      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

                      The fools of days past (who are just like the fools of today) thought that the internal combustion engine was causing global cooling (just like the fools of the present think that the internal combustion engine is warming the earth).

                      So, which is it, fool? Do internal combustion engines cool or warm the earth? OR, in your bizarro world, are both true at the same time?

                    • The idiots all think they can come up with a simple way to model the most complicated thing mankind has ever pondered.
                      You can’t. There are way too many variables whose relationship between each other has never even been studied, let alone established.

                    • They can’t tell me what the temperature will be next Wed +/- 2 degrees or the humidity within 5%, but they can model a hockey stick divergence in temperature that has not started, 50 years from now. And WE are criticized for not understanding the learned sciencewhores.

                    • The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

                      “Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.”

                      Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society > September 2008 > The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific ConsensusAdvanced Search

                    • There isn’t a single scientific publication in your list. But there is a TV show about werewolves, UFO’s and Big foot.

                      And also this…

                      Deadly Harvest [Film] (Starring: Kim Cattrall, Clint Walker, 1976)

                      Ahahahahahahahah…. Stuuuuuuuuupid.

                    • Most all of us old enough to remember sat in science classes in the 1970s and were told repeatedly that we were headed for extinction due to an approaching ice age, and those of us that didn’t starve to death were going to be wiped out by killer bees swarming up from Mexico. All of this was going to happen by the year 2000 they said. Well, It’s almost 2016, and I am still waiting.

                    • I HAD a Science Class; “Man and His Environment” taught by a PhD in Physical Chemistry. He called the supposed coming Petroleum shortage a LOAD of BULLSHYTE (In polite language of course) and poked holes in every other BULLSHYTE climate claim that was being made about cooling OR man caused change.
                      I got an “A” in that class back in the day you had to work and EARN your grade, NOT just show up.

                    • ❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
                      ng….
                      ➤➤
                      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportOnline/GetPaid/$98hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

                    • DON’T bother Spouting the “ADJUSTED temperature sources of the government agency; They have adjusted PAST temperatures DOWN for the last 2 or 3 HUNDRED YEARS and the CURRENT temperatures UP to justify their completely WRONG BULLSHYTE and make believe. It’s fodder for morons like you that are incapable of thinking.

                    • Adjustments /fudge factors are used all the time in science to correlate imperfect models with experimental results. They are done with full transparency. Changing the EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS is an entirely different matter. It is unethical. In my (read: evil) multinational corporation, to falsify data is to violate its ethics policy, and leads to termination.

                    • Why would that matter? Can’t you read? Or do you have to EXPERIENCE history. Not all of us have the attention span of a goldfish.

                    • Because I was a witness to the claims back then about a new ice age, it is obvious that you were not. Next time you read something, verify, verify, verify.

                    • No one in the scientific community made such claims. You were a gullible loser then and you remain a gullible loser today.

                      Denialist scumbag.

                    • The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
                      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

                      Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

                      Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society > September 2008 > The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

                    • Books are also written about Bigfoot conspiracies, Alien tunnels under the White House, the secret alien base built in the hollow core of the earth, about the evils of vaccination, and how the pyramids were built from cement rather than stone.

                      Ben Carson – running for the Republican Nomination for president believes that the pyramids were built to store grain – something he read in a book somewhere, sometime.

                      And of course there are the dozens of books that document how the Moon Landings were a hoax.

                    • Have you planned what you will say when the noose is being placed around your neck?

                      The noose won’t be listening.

                    • The examples provided in your first paragraph are actually a good representation of what passes for climate science. For example, nobody has seen the hockey stick divergence (or bigfoot) but more people believe in the former.

                    • Nice. Why do you keep sharing data that people are hoping may not happen? When I was in grad school at Carnegie Mellon, on professor criticized another student during her thesis review as practicing “mental masturbation”. It was a crude statement, but it applies to the warming crowd i think.

                    • 18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year

                      In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now”
                      to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth
                      Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first
                      Earth Day, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of
                      apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in
                      his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 45th anniversary of Earth Day,
                      and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 15 years
                      ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first
                      Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply
                      wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are
                      18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when
                      the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

                      1.
                      Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end
                      within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems
                      facing mankind.”

                      2. “We are in an
                      environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of
                      the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington
                      University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the
                      scholarly journal Environment.

                      3. The
                      day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned,
                      “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to
                      enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration
                      and possible extinction.”

                      4.
                      “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small
                      increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared
                      in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at
                      least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during
                      the next ten years.”

                      5. “Most of the
                      people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of
                      man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled
                      “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will
                      have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into
                      famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic,
                      think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the
                      decade of the 1980s.”

                      6. Ehrlich
                      sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of
                      The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4
                      billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the
                      “Great Die-Off.”

                      7. “It is already too
                      late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief
                      organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living
                      Wilderness.

                      8. Peter Gunter, a North
                      Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree
                      almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread
                      famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of
                      India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or
                      conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine
                      conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world,
                      with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will
                      be in famine.”

                      9. In January 1970,
                      Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical
                      evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban
                      dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985
                      air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by
                      one half….”

                      10. Ecologist Kenneth
                      Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only
                      a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere
                      and none of our land will be usable.”

                      11.
                      Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up
                      all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to
                      suffocate.

                      12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in,
                      predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take
                      hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich
                      sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during
                      “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

                      13.
                      Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other
                      chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life
                      expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans
                      born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he
                      predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach
                      42 years by 1980, when it might level out.

                      14.
                      Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends
                      continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t
                      be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er
                      up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

                      15.
                      Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences,
                      published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves
                      and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after
                      2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

                      16.
                      Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley,
                      secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years,
                      somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals
                      will be extinct.”

                      17. In 1975, Paul
                      Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original
                      tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30
                      years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas
                      will vanish with it.”

                      18. Kenneth Watt
                      warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been
                      chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present
                      trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the
                      global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year
                      2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

                      MP:
                      Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth
                      Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded tomorrow with media hype, and
                      claims like this from the official Earth Day website:

                      Scientists
                      warn us that climate change could accelerate beyond our control,
                      threatening our survival and everything we love. We call on you to keep
                      global temperature rise under the unacceptably dangerous level of 2
                      degrees C, by phasing out carbon pollution to zero. To achieve this, you
                      must urgently forge realistic global, national and local agreements, to
                      rapidly shift our societies and economies to 100% clean energy by 2050.
                      Do this fairly, with support to the most vulnerable among us. Our world
                      is worth saving and now is our moment to act. But to change everything,
                      we need everyone. Join us.

                      Finally, think about this question, posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030?
                      Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less
                      hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, and longer life expectancy, and
                      with lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction
                      about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential
                      group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never
                      looked so bleak.” In other words, the hype, hysteria and spectacularly
                      wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by the
                      “environmental grievance hustlers.”

                      Earth Day

                      Ronald Bailey

                    • ❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
                      ng……
                      ➤➤
                      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportOnline/GetPaid/$98hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

                    • “1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end
                      within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems
                      facing mankind.””

                      He was right. And many problems were addressed. I.E. the green revolution,

                      But many of the problems remain to be addressed.

                    • Curious what the defining and specific “immediate action” was that did the trick? Your talent in logic suggest IVY league. Here is another, and it represents an identical process in thought and logic: While I live in the northern US, my home was at risk for invasion by hippopotamus. I determined that immediate action was required, in the form of smearing dog crap all over my front door. It was completely effective. Whew. Hun, you can’t hold the absence of a hypothetical outcome as proof that a theorized antidote worked.

                    • “2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.”

                      Yup. He is absolutely right.

                    • Absolutely. We will always and forever be in the midst of a threatening, but not actual, environmental crisis. Its pretty convenient.

                    • “3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to
                      enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration
                      and possible extinction.””

                      Absolutely. That statement is more true today than when it was first stated.

                    • … and will always be true apparently. Convenient. Do you know for example that global oil reserves have continually grown faster than consumption? The bumbling clods who continue predicting a “run out of oil” date aren’t having a good time of it.

                    • 9. In January 1970,
                      Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical
                      evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban
                      dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985
                      air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by
                      one half….”

                      Fortunately despite opposition from Republicans, government regulation forced coal fired power plants and automotive manufacturers to reduce their particulate emissions so that the future described would not happen.

                      You might notice the Severe air pollution seen in China, where people actually do wear gas masks to filter out the air pollution.

                    • “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the
                      global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year
                      2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” – Kennith Watt

                      He was absolutely right.

                    • “Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley,
                      secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years,
                      somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals
                      will be extinct.”

                      ‘Without Doubt,’ a Sixth Mass Extinction Event is Here – http://www.natureworldnews.com/ – Aug 02, 2015 02:08 AM EDT

                    • Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”

                      “7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution” – World Health Organization.

                      25 MARCH 2014 | GENEVA – In new estimates released today, WHO reports that in 2012 around 7 million people died – one in eight of total global deaths – as a result of air pollution exposure. This finding more than doubles previous estimates and confirms that air pollution is now the world’s largest single environmental health risk. Reducing air pollution could save millions of lives.

                    • Erlich and Watt had quite the competition of “wrong” going there. I have no idea really, but suspect if not dead they still enjoy a comfy academic job, or enjoyed one until they departed.

                    • you are apparently too young to remember “the next ice age is coming”. It happened about the same time that we were forced to changed from paper grocery bags to plastic in order to save trees.

                    • Sorry, kook, but the scientific community provided no such warning.

                      You are lying.

                      But lying is what Republicans do 24/7/365.

                  • You nailed it. The global warming hoaxers, or religionists, are in a panic because fewer and few people are buying their emotionally-charged nonsense. They would have you believe they have received the divine wisdom that carbon dioxide has been isolated from the host of natural factors that have always driven climate. Even their attempt to paint realists as “climate change deniers” shows them to be imbeciles. No one denies that climate changes. The issue are: by how much? who or what is responsible?; and is it worth throwing a wrench into our economies in a ludicrous attempt to “fix” it? The answers are: nothing at all to be concerned about; natural climate variability; and HELL NO, are you crazy?

                    This people have overreacted, for political reasons, to a phenomenon that can only be measured in geologic time, not over short-term political cycles that just happened to coincide with the rise of the modern environmental movement, the parallel desire of some scientists to glom on to the movement for grant-seeking benefits, and the political aspirations of Al Gore who, having flunked out of divinity school, needed a new religion to ride into the White House–thank you Supreme Court (at least on that score).

                    • COP21 is a success.

                      2015 by far the warmest year ever recorded, globally.

                      Temperatures have risen by 0.3’C over the last 20 years.

                      You are dying of old age. Your ignorance will die along with you.

                  • We realize how the earth being flat worked out. I have an aunt living on the other side of the flat earth. She believes living in N Korea would be better than where she living. She knows that a lot of new isis wanna be come from her side but getting to our side is very tricky but not illegal because no one believes it.. Funny thing is they all become Democrats.

                • The two terms are not mutually exclusive, you know.
                  In Paris, you have possibly the dumbest, least informed, least successful enclave of humans in history deciding how the rest of the world lives.
                  Versailles had nothing on it.

                • I’m trying to think of another area of honest study, scientific or otherwise, where one view refers to a dissenting population as “denialists”. There aren’t any. That is a telling and damning reality. Global warmists more reflect a religious cult than anything else.

                    • Sorry. Try again. In none of these fields to protagonist call the other side “deniers”. Big Bang? This is hardly settled. There is significant work ongoing and they all play nice in the sandbox. Evolution? Please. Relativity? Nobody disputes it because the data have unequivocally supported the theory. Without the need to “adjust”. Incidentally Einstein himself was skeptical of his work in statistical mechanics. “God does not roll dice” were his words. He was asking, ASKING, for someone to find a better and more elegant answer.

              • Yeah. Except for those who are busy inventing all the things that make modern life possible, such as this incredible network who’s resources you’re wasting posting uneducated, anti intellectual Archie Bunker quips on.

                    • True, however, people can manipulate data and lie about “science” while engineers are bound by real world, verifiable facts.

                    • If the scientist is wrong, sooner or later we find out and change our view.
                      If the engineer is imprecise, people die. Too late then to change their view.

                    • If the science is wrong, then all science developed int he last 200 years is wrong.

                      Probability = 0

                    • ❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
                      ng…
                      ➤➤
                      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportOnline/GetPaid/$98hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

                    • Denialists are constantly cherry picking data. Scientists can’t do that because if they dd, their work would not be published.

                      Engineers on the other hand are free to design as many flush toilets as they like.

                    • ONLY ignorance IS YOU; You can Engineer and invent many things WITH OUT any “science” or “scientist” around or doing anything.

                    • ❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
                      hbq..
                      ➤➤..
                      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportNew/GetPaid/$98hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

                    • Yes like the crying towel, and God, and what else?

                      What else are you talking about. What has been invented or discovered without science ?

                • I thought Al Gore invented the internet. That is what he said, right before he said “global warming” which was right before that was debunked (because the temps aren’t rising) and he had to start saying “climate change” (because that is what the climate does, change, normally over time).

                  • This climate issue is an income tax scam, for USA and world.

                    Americans should read their tax laws before sending money to politicians.

                    Its Outrageous. Does anyone in taxpayer-land ever bother to read tax law before giving hard earned money to politicians, known liars?

                    Govt-Politicians are lying about taxes. U.S. tax law is codified, and easy as 1,2.

                    1.
                    -Exempt Income-
                    26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)
                    “exempt income means any income that is … exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes.”

                    2.
                    -Income Not Exempt- [aka, The list of Taxable Income]
                    26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)
                    “Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income

                    (A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer … gross income (whether domestic or foreign source)
                    (B) gross income of a DISC or a FSC; [means Domestic International Sales Corp, Foreign Sales]
                    (C) gross income of a possessions corporation
                    (D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911”

                    Do you make Foreign earned income? No? Then according to code (law), you don’t owe any income tax. As usual, politicians are stealing money from citizens under color of law.

                    SOURCE: ecfr DOT gov
                    HOW TO: Click Simple Search, find “exempt income means”

                    MORE:
                    Computer scientist data-mines tax code, Whatistaxed DOT com

                  • I think he said he invented the hair net or was it fish net? Hey its Al he probably invented all three, he had all that time to do nothing while VP.
                    The only thing I remember gore saying to Billy was, “get with the program before Hilda finds out.”

                  • Liar Liar.. Pants on fire…

                    “I thought Al Gore invented the internet. That is what he said” – tward3

                    Al Gore and the Internet

                    By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

                    Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

                    No one person or even small group of persons exclusively “invented” the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

                    Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he “invented” the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

                    As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

                    As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an “Interagency Network.” Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush’s administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This “Gore Act” supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

                    As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation’s schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

                    There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet’s rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

                    The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.

                • “How else is a “climate scientist” to make a living, after all.”

                  It’s difficult with neofascists cutting research budgets!

                  If you understand the person who runs this propaganda site is actually paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of their product, why would you believe a single word he says?

                  Is it possible you’re that gullible?

                  “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”

                  http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

                    • “Desmogblog? Really? That’s your “reliable” source?”

                      Sure! Do you have information that Mr. Morano derives his income from some other source besides the fossil fuel industry?

                      What source is that?

                      “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

                      climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

                    • “Sure! Do you have information that Mr. Morano derives his income from some other source besides the fossil fuel industry?”

                      You must first provide a source (a reliable one) that confirms your original claim.

                      “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

                      You know that many organizations, like NASA and NOAA, do not have a legitimate poll from all of their scientists to make such claims right? That action comes from the higher-ups (the people who run the organization). They sort of speak on behalf of all of their scientists. For example, a recent study that showed that 48% of the professional members of the American Meteorological Society said man IS NOT responsible for a large portion of the warming trend. However, the AMS still adopts the alarmist view on global warming, despite what almost half of their own scientists say.

                      As for the 97% studies, view here:

                      http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html

                      http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

                  • Take a chill pill. In the mist of the hyperventilating you missed the key point: these pseudo scientists MUST take the affirmative view of this BS. There is no viable way for them to earn money being objective. Falsifying data in an effort to prove a theory doesn’t work in any branch of real science. And thank you for mentioning the word fascism: name a single area of scientific research where dissenting views are not tolerated. Turn the brain stem on, man.

                    • “these pseudo scientists MUST take the affirmative view of this BS.”

                      …and why would you think that?

                      The first person to prove humans warm the planet when we emit greenhouse gasses was someone named Eunice Foote, and she did so over a century ago.

                      Is it likely she was engaging in pseudo-science and no one on Earth has noticed in all that time?

                      “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

                      http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

                    • I think that because there is no funding available otherwise, and more importantly no reason for the work if the assumed outcome isn’t so. You are over-complicating the point.

                • ❝my neighbor’s aunty is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
                  4ppz……….
                  ➤➤
                  ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportTap/GetPaid/$98hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

            • Guys this is so bad on so many levels, I dont even know where to start. When are we the people going to stand up and say no more? I know we keep putting it off but eventually the day will come. At this point it has to, if we as the human race are going to survive. I personally would rather get it over with. Like ripping a band aid. I do not know if I will survive but I will go down fighting. I would rather die on my feet than on my knees. This globalism has to stop NOW

              • That is sad how the liberal media does that. Most see Hilda as president already.
                They die if Trump is elected or any Republican. They will soon open up on all the republicans running especially Carson, Trump, an Cruz.

                • Money is just one of the tools of control. There are many. Religion, psychology, sociology and much more help them control. Money alone is absolutely worthless because it’s value in a fiat currency model is all based on perception.

                  This perception is created both psychologically and sociological in nature. The real fuel used is a psychology of the human mind. It’s more commonly known as social engineering and what they are using is confusion and perceived authority to push their policy.

                  They are basically hypnotizing the populaces of the world.

                  Money, or a lack of money is just one of their many catalyst.

          • Hey how do we get in on it with the money.
            Cant but now wait an see all the climate tax being applied to cars, registrations, car sales, gas tax, drivers licenses, and whatever the government can strap us with.

              • And yet all of CA has warmed since last Jan? Go figure? hope it cools down for a least a couple of months maybe the money they have collected will provide enough funds to stop the warming till march. Then they’ll have to raise the tax or it will be in the 90’s by Aug.

              • Have been reading about some new technologies which will convert us to a 100% electrical powered world in (?) the near future. This uses NO gasoline, oil. It used ONLY electromagnet fields which are ALL around us and is generated in the interior of the planet.

            • Only to discover (they already know) there isn’t a damn thing they can do to change naturally occurring phenomenon that’s played out over millions of years and now billions of $$$ into the hands of thieves!

          • Exactly. We should not pollute unnecessarily, but this is all theater. The crux being government seizing control of our lives and appropriating more of our property/wealth. Big money for “the few” in the near term, and a new long-term mandate/precedent that world governments should hold sway over other all sovereign nations, and more importantly that they should be able to tax at will to save us from the boogeyman that they created. But let’s not forget the fact that to them the best part of this is a giant new propaganda lever to control nearly anything they choose. They have already clearly demonstrated both these motives to the world even before they have a complete scientific model to prove of anything. That hasn’t stopped their well-meaning, but ignorant devotees from naively choosing to listen only to their lame, hollow “save the planet” refrains and ignore the fact that all these clowns are the same old human politicos with the same motives that their ilk have had since the dawn of civilization; Power & Wealth.

            • We don’t have the text of the agreement yet but we do have….

              Premier Li Keqiang, who represented China at the summit, announced that the country will cut its CO2 emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 60-65% from 2005 levels. Moreover, China would increase its share of non-fossil fuels as part of its primary energy consumption to about 20% by 2030. 2030 is also the year by which China will aim to peak its emissions of CO­2 emissions.

              China plans to increase its installed capacity of wind power to 200 GW and solar power to around 100 GW, up from 95.81 GW and 28 GW today, respectively. It will also increase its use of natural gas which is expected to make up more than 10% of its primary energy consumption by 2020.

        • The Pope talks about people starving if ‘we’ don’t take action on ‘climate change’ but he fails to address the consequences of the world if these psychopaths get their way controlling the climate and taking prosperity out of the hands of the many.

        • Leftists, by definition, believe themselves entitled by “right” to be free of other people’s rights, which is why leftists commit nearly all crime (depriving victims of their rights) and run government as organized criminals to deprive people of their rights. The only man made crisis we face is leftists. As with their other world wars, there is but one way to deal with leftists.

      • I think the Global Warming scam was inspired by Hitler’s propaganda tactics.
        Hitler’s psychological profile:

        Never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

      • it seems if you know anything about those who advocate for saving us from global warming, you find two types of people——-
        1—very rich people with huge energy expenditures via travel and homesteads
        2—sheep like followers who need some mindless cause to try to create some meaning for their life

            • Your Previous link to “popular feknologe” makes me laugh. It includes links to a TV show about Werewolves, UFO’s and Big Foot, as well as a movie staring Kim Cattrell – “Deadly Harvest”.

              There is stupid, and then there is denialist stupid.

              • Where does it say that exactly? Also, you are dodging the main point. I sent you links related to the argument, you’re talking about a completely different link that may not even exist or is taken out of context.

                • “Where does it say that exactly? ” – SquidBoy

                  You didn’t even read your own link?

                  Pathetic.

                  Your link includes links to a TV show about Werewolves, UFO’s and Big Foot, as well as a movie staring Kim Cattrell – “Deadly Harvest”.

                  • I’ve read and referenced that link a thousand times. Perhaps you’re seeing ads? I have ad-blocker, so I wouldn’t see them. Ads don’t reflect the website’s content, you know.

                    The only links on the page are to other articles (all but a few referencing global warming, others about debunking 9/11 conspiracies and talking about technology), links to scientific papers, journals, and other articles.

                    There is even a page that lists common arguments/smears on the site, one being:

                    “Criticism: Popular Technology.net is a conspiracy theorist website.

                    Rebuttal: This is a dishonest ad hominem as we have resources challenging 911, JFK and Moon Landing conspiracy theories.”

      • As long as THEY control things – The hell with the facts. They will see and hear what they want to see and hear.
        If WE do anything, then WE are going to screw up their view of the world and how things (actually/probably) work.

        • It is the greatest conspiracy in the history of Man. Hundreds of scientific organizations, tens of thousands of papers, all wrong. All those scientists with their magic decoder rings and secret handshakes, going to hidden meetings to plan what doctored data to use next.

          Or, maybe it is just another branch of science which started in the 19th Century, with the work of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius, before there was the UN, the NWO, the EPA, chemtrails, Obama, HAARP, Gore, Agenda 21, the Moon landing hoax and those who are after our precious bodily fluids.

      • Exactly, the most common “greenhouse gas” is Argon 9000-10000 parts per million vs Carbon Dioxide 300-400 parts per million. However Argon can not be blamed on humans and taxed and regulated. Even if these morons could in fact reduce Carbon Dioxide, if the reduce below 180 parts per million and the earth could no longer support plant life, game over dead planet. I wonder if this is what happened to Mars? LOL.

          • So you are saying we should put legal controls on and fine people for the production of water vaporization? Since by your own admission water vapor is a much more prevalent greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide.

            • No. That would be meaningless, since the water content of the atmosphere is determined by air temperature and only on the availability of water over arid regions.

              Don’t you Denialists have rain on your home planet of Delusia?

              • I am the denier after over 18 years of no warming and evidence of data tampering, the ice caps adding over 100 tons of ice, the list goes on. You idiots live in a state of denial, and actually to believe in global climate change requires a complete abandonment of scientific method for something called consensus. There is no formula that you can site that would allow me to correlate CO2 levels wit historic temperature readings, and as a matter of fact the warmest period we can locate historically through the study of tree rings was during the renaissance which predates the industrial revolution. Not to mention the zealots of global warming have this far been less accurate than medieval sorcerers.

                • “There is no formula that you can site that would allow me to correlate CO2 levels wit historic temperature reading.” – JohnGaltLiar

                  Liar Liar.. Pants on fire.

                  Here is the correlation shown graphically.

                  My goodness you Libertarians are stupid.

                  • So you are saying that i can correlate CO2 to historical trends and derive what the temperature was at any given time in history. My what a breakthrough, too bad it falls flat on it’s face like most of the weather voodoo claims once tested. Explain the high temps during the renaissance for example. If you do not question the science and test the science and just believe it, it is no longer science it is a religion.

                    • “So you are saying that i can correlate CO2 to historical trends and derive what the temperature was at any given time in history?”

                      There are a large number of slowly evolving factors that influence global climate. Solar output, insolation, the positions of the continents.

      • .04 of 1% (400ppm) is a flyspeck, not a footprint. You eat more goverment approved rat feces and hair in your “all natural” heart healthy granola than there is CO2 to other gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor makes up 95% of ALL “hothouse gases” but the Climate Hoax Conference never spoke on word on it.

      • I am not paying to enslave myself or my posterity. This is nothing but an attempt to tax humanity for existing. We exhale Co2 and they (Leaders) will use it to enslave the entirety of humanity.

        Now they will have a “Global Tax” to fund the UN as our world government. This is how they will legitimize it. There is no legit government that can’t level taxes on the populace or the people under that government. Carbon taxes will be the final catalyst for world domination by the few, enabling the UN to become the world government .

    • Socialism is based on the hope of a transcendent man….a stupid premise if there ever was one. Man does not and WILL not ever live outside of himself enough to make a world collective possible. Socialism is an unworkable theory COERCED upon populations by dreamers who have never been accountable to function in the REAL world.

      • You are being too nice. The leaders are not dreamers. They are schemers, who acquire immense power and the wealth that always accompanies great power. Every single leader of the Democratic Party is not only a multi-millionaire, but has chosen to live an imperial lifestyle. They speak of socialism and income equality, but carefully avoid both for themselves and their own families. Total, self-serving, hypocrisy.

        • Because, as the arbiters of societal distribution, they deserve and need those perks because they labor endlessly for the greater good.

          /that, and there is no way they want to live like serfs — that’s why they have wealth and power.

        • I think they are both dreamers and schemers…and I fully acknowledge how corrupt the dream ALWAYS becomes. I was just pointing out that secular humanism, as practiced by world socialists, is a RELIGION just like any other wherein one has to believe in something intangible and un-provable. Socialists HAVE to ridicule belief in order to coerce socialism as an alternative. Judeo/Christianity is a DIRECT threat to the premise that man can transcend himself.

          The people at the top of EVERY power structure ought to be questioned. I’m pretty sure to be a fly on the wall among the leaders of ANY religious, political, or social group…one would fly away more cynical.

        • toilet paper – good subject.
          – ever try and wipe with a stick or a rock?
          In the 1800’s (and probably prior to that) men/women carried a ‘shit rag”
          They would wipe then rinse the rag. They would carry that rag for days, weeks or months until they could actually wash it properly. Can you imagine having to carry a ‘shit rag’ with you where ever you traveled?

      • Man works on the basis of what he (thinks) will benefit him.
        If future experience shows that his original observations and conclusion were wrong (or changed)
        Man will jump to another conclusion. Eventually he will get it right but how long will that take?

    • It’s so ironic that I just finished watching the great documentary “Stop at Nothing: The Lance Armstrong Story,” about another tale of staggering fraud that people refused to see. Regarding this “climate deal” however, I think the climate hoaxers may have screwed themselves. After demanding that we “had to do something to save the planet”, they have what amounts to small potatoes, leaving them in the position where a ‘moving of the goalposts’ will be needed for further shakedowns.

    • What is really disturbing is how this “science” they always talk about being “settled” is not even science at all. It’s speculation based on computer models. They can’t reproduce anything – a key factor in real science. Hypothesis? The earth is warming. Next step? Develop TESTABLE predictions. They test with computer models that have already been proven inaccurate and falsified (NOAA altering data). Next – gather data to test the predictions. Since NOAA is altering data, it’s obvious that their predictions are incorrect. Their “settled science” is way far off base from being real science, and those crooks that make these claims should swallow their tongues and admit they’re wrong.

      • When there’s trillions to be made – Not billions – there will always be evidence they can produce to support their claim. No matter how convincing, or how many people they assisinate who disrupts the plot/narrative, they WILL find a way to make the masses only beleive what they have to say, while covering up the evidence they created to come to their conclusions and stances on this issue.

      • “Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions?”

        “Let’s review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

        That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
        That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
        That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
        That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
        Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
        That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
        The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
        They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
        They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
        The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
        The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
        The expansion of the Hadley cells.
        The poleward movement of storm tracks.
        The rising of the troposphere and the effective radiating altitude.
        The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
        The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
        That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

        “Seventeen correct predictions? Looks like a pretty good track record to me.

        “Are there problems with the models, and areas where they haven’t gotten it right yet? Sure there are. The double Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone which shows up in some coupled models, ENSO variability, insufficiently sensitive sea ice, diurnal cycles of moist convection, and the exact response of climate to clouds are all areas of ongoing research. But the models are still the best thing we have for climate prediction under different scenarios, and there is no reason at all to think they’re getting the overall picture wrong.”

        References to the prediction articles and to the confirmation articles are in the complete Web page from which I took the predictions above.

        http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html