Preparedness equals raising premiums. Thanks global warming libtards. Got no one to blame but yourself for higher premiums…except Bush. Lean forward middle class, they did it to you again.
After all jack, we have to sell some more carbon credits on the exchange so Al Gore can get richer. With as much CO2 being emitted on the left, they would have a very high bill to pay.
I love it when you right wing, science-denying zealots continue campaigning against Al Gore. Keep it up!!! The mid-term elections are coming up and I’ll bet you’ll find a way for him to lose this election too.
I don’t know about you Dave, but I have a profound problem with the Global Warming/Climate Change people who tell us that it is man’s fault, the sea is rising and all coastal property will be under water in 10 years. These are the same people who say the Polar Ice Cap has melted when facts say ice covers 1.7 million more miles now than it did. How goofy are these people?
“Over the past several decades Earth’s polar ice caps have gained a significant amount of attention due to their alarming decrease in land and sea ice. NASA reports that sea ice in the Arctic has been declining at a rate of nine percent per decade for the past 30 years, while Antarctica has been losing land ice mass at a rate of more than 100 cubic kilometers per year since 2002.
Due to polar ice caps current rate of decline, there have been many investigations and discoveries on glacier dynamics and their influence on the world’s climate. In the early 1950s, scientists and engineers from the US Army began drilling into polar ice caps for geological insight. These studies resulted in “nearly forty years of research experience and achievements in deep polar ice core drillings… and established the fundamental drilling technology for retrieving deep ice cores for climatologic archives.” Polar ice caps have been used to not only track current climate patterns, but also patterns over the past several thousands years due to traces of CO2 and CH4 found trapped in the ice. In the past decade, polar ice caps have shown their most rapid decline in size with no true sign of recovery. Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist at NASA, found that the “rate of warming in the Arctic over the last 20 years is eight times the rate of warming over the last 100 years.” In September 2012, sea ice reached its smallest size ever. Journalist John Vidal stated that sea ice is “700,000 sq km below the previous minimum of 4.17m sq km set in 2007″. In August 2013, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 6.09m km2, which represents 1.13 million km2 below the 1981-2010 average for that month.”
Hey Skeptical, don’t you just believe Libby on anything she writes? She is a legend in her own mind. Anyone who has a different viewpoint is instantly insulted and called a moron.
October 27, 2014 at 7:38 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Very Skeptical,
The source is NASA, Did you miss her first sentence?
Agent,
Exactly how are you different?
When is the last time you cited a source on one of your posts?
October 24, 2014 at 2:59 pm
jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Number 3 on NASA’s to do list from Obola himself is Muslim outreach. NASA has ZERO credit.
Talk about us blaming everything on Bush! Now you’re blaming Obama for Ebola! LOL!
October 24, 2014 at 3:51 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, do you blame Bush for AIDS in Africa. He did send a lot of aid and medicine over there and health workers to try to help them. I know you blame him for anything and everything during his terms.
October 24, 2014 at 4:04 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent, you’re a fool. No, I don’t blame Bush for AIDS. Do you blame Obama for Ebola?
October 28, 2014 at 9:38 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So Agent, are your proud of your great state of Texico for turning away a 93 year-old veteran from the voting booth because his drivers license had expired – because he DOESN’T DRIVE ANYMORE??? You guys take the cake.
October 28, 2014 at 12:16 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Does he stop being a citizen because his driving privileges expired??? Veterans deserve better!!!
October 29, 2014 at 12:33 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Told you NASA sucks. You see that rocket go up in smoke libtards!! It’s hard be so right most of the time, but I’ll live with it.
Jack – who’s the “tard” here? Did you miss the part in the article that said the government didn’t build this rocket? This was a PRIVATE company using NASA facilities. It was a RUSSIAN rocket built using 1970’s technology.
Do you EVER research ANYTHING before spouting off?
October 24, 2014 at 9:50 am
insurance_guy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I read the same article on NY Times and they paint a *slightly* more objective picture. They report provided a critique for how insurance companies are skirting their responsibility to cover claims from weather related losses. We all have to admit this is true, otherwise you are living under a rock.
However, the report also stated that one of the reasons for this is simply the threat of litigation and political pressure. If politicians and the legal system let insurers do their job without the threat of lawsuits then we could see insurers shift their priority to cover more claims.
Oftentimes, defending a lawsuit is more than the actual claim.
The NYT never does anything even close to “objective”.
We are all being bullied into submitting to the climate change agenda — an agenda based solely on computer models. Doesn’t it make you skeptical when you hear the certainty to which the true believers speak, yet daily we hear another story that starts out “scientists are baffled…”. Indeed, there is even a website that chronicles how hard it is to be so sure: http://www.scientistsbaffled.com
Final thought: if “man” is causing the globe to heat up, how did the Ice Age end?
Scientists are supposed to be baffled. That’s what causes them to question and do research. I didn’t see anything on your website that disputed climate change. There is almost total consensus among professional scientists that the climate is currently undergoing rapid change. Nobody is arguing that. The argument is about what is causing this rapid change.
If you want to argue that man has nothing to do with it, then fine. Don’t you can’t argue that it’s not happening. That’s just showing your ignorance.
Hey Lib, the website was to illustrate the point that “scientists” or experts in general can be and will be wrong. That’s all. But the “we are right about man made climate change” crowd wants to be immune from this.
If “Scientists are supposed to be baffled” why aren’t the climate scientists? And I’m sure you have noticed that those that to question it will get you severely beaten. You say “That’s what causes them to question and do research.” NOTE: there is no questioning it, not even with you!!
Also — since when is science governed by “consensus”?? Lib…talk about exposing ignorance. Geez. There was once “consensus” that the earth was flat, and that blood-letting can cure you of your various diseases! I’m baffled with you!!
I believe that the climate has always been in a state of flux. It didn’t just start recently. You didn’t answer the ice age question, did you? I also believe that humans are doing nothing to effect it either way. It is arrogant to think that we can, and also arrogant to think that over the many millions of years that the earth has been here, we are the ones to finally end it all, with disposable diapers and plastic water bottles no less.
What is baffling scientists is the REASON for the change. There is some evidence that it could be caused by the earth’s sensitivity to even slight orbital changes. I don’t know the reason and don’t purport to know the reason.
Regarding the last ice age, there is evidence that CO2 may have contributed to it’s end. But I’m not a scientist or expert on this subject so I don’t really know.
I don’t know how anyone can dispute the fact of climate change and expect to be taken seriously. Now, being adament about the cause will tend to make someone look foolish.
October 24, 2014 at 3:56 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Good one Skeptical. Many of the so called Climatologists admitted to falsifying data to support their conclusions about Global Warming and Climate Change and some have resigned in disgrace. However, there is still a narrative that somehow man is responsible, the coastal cities will be under water in 10 years, the Arctic Ice Cap will melt etc etc ad nauseum. I have seen data that the Arctic Cap has increased in size by 1.7 million square miles. Where exactly is this ice melting?
October 24, 2014 at 4:07 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent – are you so stupid you can’t understand there are two separate points being made here? Nobody, I mean NOBODY, in the scientific community has not acknowledged the climate is changing.
What nobody can agree on is the cause of the change. You are such a simpleton. I shake my head in disbelief at your ignorance.
October 24, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Rosenblat says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“I have seen data that the Arctic Cap has increased in size by 1.7 million square miles. Where exactly is this ice melting?”
A) Please provide the source of your data
B) You do realize there is an Arctic Cap and an Antarctic Cap, right? Also, there are other places in the world that have ice which aren’t located in either cap (Greenland, Siberia, etc.) Just because ice increases in one place doesn’t mean it’s increased AS A WHOLE on the planet.
C) If the Arctic Cap increases by 1.7 million square miles, the Antarctic Cap decreases by 3 million square miles (no source, just a hypothetical number leading into this question), and there is no change in any other ice levels across the world, would you agree that the ice caps are decreasing or – since you’re only referencing the Arctic cap – you’d still argue there is an increase in ice?
Hey Dave – I checked out your link and it’s not adding anything to this discussion. Your link talks about how the Arctic cap has increased in size. That’s already been stated by Agent and was the part that got me involved in this discussion in the first place.
I’d have to say that all of the active volcanos around the globe that are emitting gasses are the first and foremost cause of global warming. They’ve been here for millions of years and will be here for millions more. For crying out loud people…the islands of Hawaii are still being formed in the Pacific. Let’s give credit to global warming where it’s due…TO MOTHER NATURE. Just my two cents!
October 27, 2014 at 10:29 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thanks for your proof Dave. So Rosenblatt wanted the source, you provided it and now he blows it off and says it’s not adding anything to the discussion. Perhaps we should fly all these Global Warming people up to the North Pole and drop them off and tell them to walk back to civilization since they don’t believe evidence.
October 27, 2014 at 12:13 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
That could be the reason, Trust Me. At least you aren’t denying it’s happening like the rest of them.
October 27, 2014 at 4:48 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Fine, I’ll bite Agent & Dave.
I believe you are looking at short-term data from the past 1 to 2 years and not long-term data, as is necessary when discussing literal CLIMATE change (CLIMATE = measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME).
So, let me counter your “arctic ice has increased” point with the fact that arctic ice is still DECREASING as it applies to CLIMATE change, even if it increased in the short-term the past 1 to 2 years.
“The long-term trend [of arctic ice] still shows a decline.”
Want my source on that? Please re-read the article you posted.
Think about it. If ice was, for arguments sake, 100 “units” in 2000, 75 “units” in 2010, 85 “units” in 2013 and 90 “units” in 2014 … sure, arctic ice technically increased (the past 2 years), but guess what — long term, as is necessary when discussing CLIMATE change as defined above, arctic ice actually decreased!!!
Listen. I’m not here to argue humans are or aren’t the sole cause of climate change. I’m just saying when your own sources say ice has decreased long-term but increased short-term, when discussing CLIMATE change (again, climate = long term trends), you’re misleading people when you say arctic ice has increased and therefore that proves there’s no climate change.
October 28, 2014 at 5:28 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Trust me, you are right that volcanos around the world have done much to emit toxic gases. Iceland, Phillipines have seen major eruptions in recent years along with our own Mt. St Helens which was really horrible. Man had nothing to do with any of them except to suffer the consequences.
October 28, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So Libby, are you proud of Illinois and Maryland offering voting machines that automatically cast the ballot for Democrats? Have you had that in Pennsylvania yet or is it a matter of time that they get caught manipulating the vote? Most veterans I know have an ID to get their VA benefits. If not, the state will provide one for them. Your insult has no weight. Legitimate legal voters have no problem voting, only the illegals trying to vote do.
I’ll take that as a yes, you’re proud of the third-world country status of your state. Classy.
It’s interesting that the only person that noticed a switch in his vote was a Republican Candidate. How about that for a suspicious happening? It could easily have been rigged by your side to cast a shadow over the entire process. I wouldn’t put it past you. We should check to see if Karl Rove has been in IL anytime lately.
BTW, FoxNews was the most trustworthy source I could find for this drivel. Another sneaky, under-handed trick by the Republicans.
Libby, that was supremely uninformed even for you. Voter fraud in Illinois and now in Maryland is a fact you can’t deal with so you blame Karl Rove??????? Yes, I am proud of my state for having ethics and honesty to the voting process. Wendy Davis is running 18 points behind and will be getting drowned on election day. We are going to send her packing to Pennsylvania where she can get more traction to her twisted ideas. You should invite her over and discuss how bad Republicans are and she can tell you how bad Greg Abbott is in his wheelchair.
Wendy Davis says Greg Abbott is wrong because he’s in a wheelchair? Source please.
October 24, 2014 at 5:48 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey Rosenblat, are you having fun trolling today? Destro provided the link in the last Climate Change fiasco debate. By the way, do you remember the story some months ago about the green Scientists going down to Antarctica expecting to find penguins basking in warm waters? It seems that they got stuck in extremely thick ice and were stranded for a couple of weeks before they were rescued by helicopter since even ice breakers couldn’t get through. I guess you missed that one and Libby as well since she doesn’t watch the news.
Agent – I read your 10/27/14 @ 5:45PM post and you’re missing the point. Like I said before, I’m not here to argue humans are or aren’t the sole cause of climate change.
You wanted me to read the article in the first post which you claim supports your arguments that climate change is a hoax. Guess what? THAT ARTICLE SUPPORTS ME, NOT YOU!!
The second freaking line in that article reads, “Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.”
Again – I’m not saying climate change and increasing temp’s is man-made, solely man-made, or totally natural. How can you keep claiming the earth is not warming (citing a 1 to 2 year increase in arctic ice, yet ignoring the long-term CLIMATE changes that are happening) when your own source clearly states in the beginning of the article that there are rising global temperatures?
You do realize that “a little evidence” is actually, you know, still EVIDENCE? That article NEVER said global warming is NOT happening. It said there is little evidence that global warming is primarily caused by man. Like I’ve said multiple times, I’m not here to argue humans are or aren’t the sole cause of climate change – I’m just pointing out that the earth IS warming, even if there’s a 1-2 year increase in ice in a particular location.
Both of the articles I’m being told to read that proves I’m wrong aren’t valid since, as I’ve written verbatim, those articles clearly state the earth IS warming.
This discussion is getting pointless. I say the earth is warming, you and Dave say it’s not and point to a 1-2 year increase in arctic ice, you and Dave and Very Skeptical include links to support that the earth is NOT warming, yet both those articles CLEARLY state the earth IS warming. I can’t sway your opinion that the earth is not warming even though your links clearly prove you’re wrong. Absurd.
Oye vay with these people, Rosenblatt! They’re all too stubborn (and ignorant) to get it. It’s like banging your head against a wall. And Dave has the never to call others dumb. It’s like the Twilight Zone on here.
I hear you, Libby. I don’t know how many times I can say I’m not arguing WHY the climate has been changing over the long-term, just that it IS happening.
I’m still waiting for someone on their side of the discussion to explain how I’m wrong when I’ve supported my stance using their own sources. Mental gymnastics ahoy!
October 28, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It doesn’t have to make sense to them for it to be true!
October 29, 2014 at 2:42 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
By saying “these people” you’ll just tick those same people off that you’re talking to. They aren’t a class of stupid people. A little bit of doubt can go a long way to finding out the truth.
I do remember talking with you about climate change. Your opinion that it might not be man made is certainly new.
That doesn’t really matter though. Climate change is occurring. Just talk softer to people like Dave and you might get somewhere. They don’t like being called stubborn and ignorant for doubting what they hear. You doubt things too and are proud of it. They want to feel proud of their doubt. Then they can make an informed decision later.
October 29, 2014 at 2:53 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I have tried that softer, gentler Libby approach and it doesn’t work. Dave, Agent, Private Major, Destro, draetish and several others continue to insult me no matter what. I’ve given up trying to be civil only to be slapped upside the head.
October 29, 2014 at 2:54 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
(Plus the oye vay with Rosenblatt is an inside joke…)
October 29, 2014 at 3:23 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I also say Oy Vay, I don’t mind it.
Climate data has a lot of variables. There is the Co2 monitoring, and even that is divided to ocean vs air.
Then there are temps, and there are several different methods for this. Some people only count certain monitors due to whether types of light pierce through the Earth in different ways to cause heat than other areas. Different scientists count different locations.
This is exactly why there is doubt.
So for Agent and others there is a lot of doubt to sift through. They aren’t just randomly disbelieving.
I just posted a chart for the last 2000 years. It shows a lot. Even that chart though, the scientists (ex NASA) specifically says he doesn’t use Tree ring data. Though he doesn’t say which he did use.
It sucks not being able to get many data observations that don’t have a personal agenda. If you study climate you’re going to want a problem exist to have funding and a job. If you’re a corporation you’re going to want there to be no problem so you can keep your job. If you’re a politician you’re going to want the data to appeal to your voters.
It’s a jumbled mess.
October 29, 2014 at 3:59 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“So for Agent and others there is a lot of doubt to sift through. They aren’t just randomly disbelieving.”
I don’t agree. They have no doubt. They disbelieve period. At least I have doubt about the cause. But I don’t think there is any question that climate is changing on a more rapid pace. In fact, I haven’t seen any scientific evidence that disputs that.
October 28, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Anyone on the “the climate is not changing” side care to discuss how the two articles Dave & Very Skeptical posted — believing it supported their stance that the earth’s climate is not changing — actually clearly stated that the earth is in fact warming? Or shall those folks just keep downvoting comments to try to keep this discussion away from logic and civility?
9 people already don’t like me standing up for myself, stating I’m not a troll and asking Agent to read my reply to another comment.
Anyone care to actually express their opinions, or will we just keep downvoting comments as often as possible so those views we don’t agree with are hidden from others?
I wish I had time all day to refresh my browser and downvote them multiple times too.
Really should be limited to one vote per person, not one vote per site visit.
October 27, 2014 at 5:35 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So Rosenblatt, it depends on what the definition of is is, right? I suppose you missed the very first post on this blog from VerySkeptical and the attached article on this hoax. That is what it is from the Climate Change people, a hoax perpetrated by the left to spew their C02 nonsense. By the way, how accurate do you think the records are going back for a “very long time”? What is a long time to you? 5 years, 10 years? I think an increase of 1.7 million square miles is a significant increase in polar ice even if you still think it is not. If the indication is polar ice is being replenished, is that not a sign of normalcy and normal patterns?
I read VerySkeptical’s article and it said “…rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.” How do you interpret that to mean there aren’t rising global temperatures?
Q: By the way, how accurate do you think the records are going back for a “very long time”?
A: I don’t know. But I do feel confident the accuracy of records dating back 20+ years is pretty good.
Q: What is a long time to you?
A: Depends on the scale. A long time in a human’s lifespan is 50 years. A short time for earth would be from one epoch to another. A long time for the earth would be from one geological period to another.
I’d keep answering your questions, but I have little faith that I’d get a rational reply. If I’m wrong, I’ll be happy to keep discussing this matter with you.
So Rosenblatt, you think records going back 20 years is good for you. When you have Al Gore going around spewing his Global Warming nonsense and saying the Polar Caps will be gone by 2014, the sea drowning coastal cities and the Polar Bear on the extinction list, do you think those are smart statements? None of it has come to pass because he is a certifiable idiot. Did you know about the stats that the earth has been cooling for the past 19 years and that the hottest year on record was 1936? By the way, 50 years is not a long lifespan for a human unless you are in undeveloped Africa which is about 35. For earth, yes it is a long time and natural changes in climate have always been manifested. We had the Ice Age and the retreat from the Ice Age. Did you know that much of what is now America was covered in ice and then the Glaciers retreated. Much of what is now southern US was covered by the ocean eons ago. That doesn’t mean that man had anything to do with it. The dinasaurs perished because of the Ice age. I have little faith that I will get through to you so I expect another sarcastic reply shortly.
So Agent, you’re not only a world-renowned economist, but a geologist and paleontogist as well? What are you doing in BF Texico selling insurance? You should be out winning a Nobel prize or something.
BTW – most of the drivel you spewed above is incorrect. Read a book.
October 29, 2014 at 9:04 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent – for about the 8th time, I AM NOT ARGUING MAN HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. Get off that point already – that’s not what we’re discussing and I’ve never said that. In fact, I’ve made it clear my only point here is that the earth has been warming. That’s all I’m saying.
Why bring up Al Gore? When did I ever talk about his claims, if they were right, if they were intelligent or anything of the sort. You’re directing the conversation away from the only point I’ve ever made in this entire thread…the earth is warming.
AGENT: Did you know about the stats that the earth has been cooling for the past 19 years and that the hottest year on record was 1936?
Me: STOP MISREPRESENTING FACTS!!! This is why we can’t ever understand each other. You twist and turn evidence to support your stance and fail to accurately report those facts. The hottest year on record was 1936, huh? Well, yeah, it was the hottest year on record……FOR THE USA!!! THERE’S MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!! WE’RE TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ON A GLOBAL SCALE. LOOK AT THE STATS FOR THE ENTIRE EARTH AND YOU’LL SEE AN INCREASE IN TEMP’S. This is similar to your earlier mental gymnastics that because ice in one specific region of the earth has increased that, regardless of what’s happening in the entire world, that must mean the earth’s ice is increasing everywhere.
Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.
AGENT: By the way, 50 years is not a long lifespan for a human unless you are in undeveloped Africa which is about 35.
Me: You can’t get this right either. The lowest lifespan based on a 2014 World Health Organization report is 47.5 years. Not 35, a stat I believe you just made up.
Regardless, in 2010, the world’s average lifespan was 67.2 years, but apparently 50 years (or 75% of the average lifespan in the world) isn’t a long time in your mind somehow.
AGENT: So I expect another sarcastic reply shortly.
Me: Nothing I’ve said is sarcastic. I dare you to find one line of anything I’ve written that includes sarcasm. Good luck.
Please continue to make up all the stats you want, twist facts to mislead people that you’re actually supporting your argument when the actual stats prove you’re wrong, and include links to articles that you claim support the earth isn’t warming yet ignore the parts where those reports clearly say the earth is warming all day long.
You still haven’t made one point supported by any real evidence that the earth has not been warming up over the long-term on a global scale, not just in a single region over 1-2 years.
October 29, 2014 at 11:53 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rosenblatt – very well said, but don’t expect Agent to be able to digest and comprehend a word you said. He’s incapable.
October 25, 2014 at 12:29 pm
Simon Pedley says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What Sandy showed is that the insurers understand climate and climate change extremely well. As far as I know, none went bankrupt…they were all very well prepared. They have more complex mathematical models of climate risks than anyone else. Their risk models already had multiple versions of Sandy in them, years before the event itself. If Ceres doesn’t know about that, they should go and visit RMS or AIR and learn about how the models work. It was the government that was shown to not understand the risks, not the insurance industry.
Similarly wrt the comments about withdrawing coverage from certain areas: that’s because the insurance industry understands perfectly well, based on the same detailed risk models, that the risks are too high. If the insurance industry won’t cover it, perhaps people shouldn’t be building there? Sending those kinds of signals is a very important role for the insurance industry to play in society. The government can’t play that role, because it’s too constrained by vested interests (imagine the governor of Florida telling people not to live by the coast).
I’ve never heard of Ceres before, but if they want to point out groups that aren’t doing anything about climate change, they might perhaps start with the fossil fuels industry, or the government. But the insurance industry? They must be joking.
So stop listening to the climate hustlers and think for yourself. I just don’t get why otherwise intelligent people sub out rational thought to others. And we all know what havoc bad subcontractors can wreak!
Even if the US is having its coolest year on record, the earth as a whole is still warming up. Climate change is all about average temperatures for THE ENTIRE WORLD, not a specific area.
(For arguments sake) If the average US temperature has decreased by 5 degrees, but the world as a whole has seen temperatures increase by 10 degrees during the same time, that means the earth is warming up even if the US is cooling down. Just because the US’s temp’s have decreased does not disprove that the climate is changing to warmer average temperatures.
Hey Skeptical, I think Roger’s post was pretty close to the dumbest posts I have seen on this forum. Boiling from poisonous Carbon Dioxide????? Really?? Insurance companies doing nothing about it???? I am with you, what does he expect insurance companies to do about it? Tell all their insureds to not emit any CO2. Employees, do not breathe either.
Poisonous? Really? You realize without CO2 there would be no plant life, no food? Just goes to show how ignorant the far left is. If we want to reduce CO2 emissions, lets start with ignorant humans and their pets which all emit CO2.
Parts of northern Lake Michigan had ice in it until April or May. Latest ice in my lifetime. And this has been one of the coolest summers I’ve ever had. One maybe 2 days over 90. Easy on my A/C bill.
Dave, did you see any of the interview with the man who founded the Weather Channel? He has studied the climate for a very long time and he absolutely contradicts the so called Climatologists who believe in man made climate change. I think I might believe an expert like him over Al Gore, wouldn’t you?
You are right about that Dave. They have Global Warming/Climate Change of the brain and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them. We have heard them on every article that comes out on IJ and it appears to be getting worse rather than better.
You know why nothing you have said has swayed those who believe the earth’s average temperatures are going up? Because all of you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.
If you have something useful to add to your argument that the earth has not seen an average temperature increase over the long-term (aka climate change, the topic we’re discussing here) that is actually supported by facts, I’m listening.
Just to cut off the most common theme I’ve gotten in these comments when I bring up actual facts to support my arguments, I’m not asking for facts as to WHY the earth’s temp’s have risen — solely man-made, combined man+nature, not influenced by humans — nor am I asking if temp’s or ice in a specific region have decreased, while ignoring the rest of the earth’s temp’s or ice.
I’m looking for facts to support your argument that the earth’s average temperatures have not increased. You got anything?
I don’t feel like the current warming tells us a lot.
The other question is, if whether or not it is man made is not the question, then why are you simply trying to prove that the temperature is going up? That is a bit disingenuous. That is exactly what you are trying to imply.
You are debating dishonestly here. You are trying to force Agent to say the temperature is going up, in order to then say well we should at least consider man made warming is part of it. It’s a passive aggressive argument style. Agent is being aggressive to be sure, but there are always two people in an argument that goes to full caps lettering. You’re going to have to accept you’re the other half.
He just doesn’t want to agree man made warming is an issue.
So I would say, drop it.
October 29, 2014 at 4:06 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey Bob – I appreciate your thoughtful response about the other comments in this thread. I would just ask one thing of you – please do not go visiting my intentions.
Your implication that if Agent/Dave/etc. agree with me that the earth is warming will cause me to follow-up with points about how man has influenced the change is wrong. I said numerous times I’m not arguing potential causes of climate change – regardless of them agreeing with me that the temp’s are going up, this will not change.
I am solely focusing on the fact they keep claiming climate change is not happening because the earth’s temp’s are not going up and ice has increased – buy they keep misrepresenting facts: arctic ice increased, but ice as a whole has not and US may have had the coldest temp’s in a while, but the average earth temp’s are rising.
I am not being passive aggressive and I have no ulterior motive behind trying to get them to understand the climate is warming up. They provide “facts” to the contrary which are wrong – either intentionally (e.g. the hottest year on record was in 1936, but that’s just a US stat and doesn’t factor in temp’s across the globe) or unintentionally (ice has increased – yet that’s only true in a specific part of the world.)
I do not appreciate being called a troll (Agent) and I do not appreciate you saying I’m being dishonest in this discussion. I’ve supported my stance with evidence, cited references, copied verbatim from their “sources” where it says the earth is warming even though they claim the article states otherwise, attempted to keep the debate on point (not discussing Gore, Dem’s vs Repub’s, small 1-2 year sample data from a specific location on the earth which doesn’t prove the earth is cooling) and keep asking a single question which goes unanswered.
My point is, always has been, and will continue to be, that the earth is warming and all long-term (climate change) evidence proves this to be true. I have no intention of getting them to agree to that point just to turn around and say “A ha! So you admit it – the earth IS warming. Gotcha – that’s because it’s due to humans. You suckers fell for my trap.”
Bob: He just doesn’t want to agree man made warming is an issue.
Me: That’s fine. It is not my attempt to get them to agree to that point. I never made such a claim and specifically stated numerous times that my sole point is the earth is warming and their claims that the earth is not warming are not accurate, even based on their own “source” material.
Bob: The other question is, if whether or not it is man made is not the question, then why are you simply trying to prove that the temperature is going up?
Me: Because Agent/Dave/Skeptical keep saying the earth isn’t warming and provide twisted evidence to “support” their continued claims, which are unsubstantiated.
Yes, I used all capital letters a few times. Sure, I agree that’s probably not the best way to express myself. However, I’m sure you can understand my frustration when asking a simple question multiple times, getting non-answers at best or distorted “evidence” that doesn’t prove their point, taking the time to discuss their points one-by-one, again asking them to answer a single question, and then getting attacked in the process.
Honestly – it would be a jerk move to advise them at least half a dozen times that I’m not arguing WHY the climate is changing, just that the earth is warming, only to then go back on those words and argue that same point.
To say I am debating dishonestly and infer my intention is to get them to agree to some man-made contribution towards a warming climate is inaccurate and something I felt (once again) that I have to write here in defense of myself.
October 29, 2014 at 4:10 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, he doesn’t want to accept there’s warming at all despite all the evidence to the contrary.
And Agent (and others) stick to this position just to be contrary. It’s not dishonest debating to ask someone for evidence to back up their statement that there is no warming &/or or no climate change. We can’t even debate whether it’s man-made or not until they admit there is a change happening.
October 29, 2014 at 5:26 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Roenbblatt,
If you believe it is so worth correcting him, and wish to argue that temps are going up, you have a reason. There is urgency.
I could just as easily argue that red is blue and blue is green. Would you say you needed to stop me from telling people red is blue? You would not. You would probably drop it.
The urgency comes from the fact that you believe something might need to be done.
I don’t presume to know this. I do know this. So let’s stay honest with ourselves here.
I’ll just ask you out right:
Do you in fact believe that something should be done about global warming?
Rather than saying I’m assuming, let’s hear you say it. It doesn’t matter if I assumed if I assumed right. I read your other comments. It is clear what you believe on this.
October 29, 2014 at 5:33 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In essence:
Don’t tell someone they are wrong because they assumed if they are right.
I’m exceedingly good at knowing motivation, why someone chooses to act, and why someone likes or dislikes something in addition to why they debate.
You are arguing fervently. The only other reason you could be doing it, is that you enjoy discrediting people who don’t use facts, or even worse, you may want to believe that a group of people (republicans in this case) are against science and seek to confirm that belief through agent dave and others.
I prefer to think the more positive one, that you believe action needs to be taken.
There are only so many reasons you could make your argument with Agent. And the one that makes the most sense is you want climate change action to be taken.
October 30, 2014 at 8:42 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It seems to me his motivation may be the same as your motivation to keep hounding him about his motivation. You feel you are right and want to make a point.
It is not wrong to try to educate people that are “stuck” in denial to something one absolutely knows to be a scientific fact. The fact that they don’t want to be educated and stick to their unfounded beliefs is confounding and frustrating, which causes one to continue to try to reason with them. At some point one will throw up their hands and give up.
October 30, 2014 at 9:20 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – Even though I told you my intentions about this discussion, you again presume to know what my intentions are without taking my words at face value. I vehemently disagree with your assumption of my motives.
Bob: If you believe it is so worth correcting him, and wish to argue that temps are going up, you have a reason.
Me: Yes. I do. As I’ve said almost a dozen times, I am trying to get them to agree that temp’s are rising because they claim otherwise and provide non-evidence they feel supports their faulty argument.
Bob: I could just as easily argue that red is blue and blue is green. Would you say you needed to stop me from telling people red is blue? You would not. You would probably drop it.
Me: That’s a horrible analogy. Maybe you have color blindness and blue is green, or maybe you have more rods & cones in your eyes and perceive colors differently than others. Colors are perceived, increasing world-wide temperatures is just a fact.
Bob: The urgency comes from the fact that you believe something might need to be done. I don’t presume to know this. I do know this. So let’s stay honest with ourselves here.
Me: You are presuming once again. I’ve already said why I’m still discussing this – to get them to understand that the earth is warming up. That’s all. Pretty simple. Nothing else.
Bob: Do you in fact believe that something should be done about global warming?
Me: Sure I do, but I assure you, like I’ve said before, that is not my intent in this discussion. I feel something should be done about taxes and government handouts and foreign aid and so many other topics, but we’re not talking about that. I keep coming back to a single point I’m trying to express: the earth is warming up and those who claim otherwise are wrong based on factual evidence.
Bob: Rather than saying I’m assuming, let’s hear you say it. It doesn’t matter if I assumed if I assumed right. I read your other comments. It is clear what you believe on this.
Me: Geez man, I hope it’s clear what I believe, I keep saying the same point over and over again: the earth is warming. That’s it. I have never once even approached the topic of what, if anything, should be done or what, if anything, is contributing to the increase in temp’s. You may continue to incorrectly assume there are other points I’m trying to make and, like others, don’t take me at my word that I’m only trying to make a single point in all of these discussions.
Bob: Don’t tell someone they are wrong because they assumed if they are right.
Me: Okay. You’re wrong because you assumed incorrectly.
Bob: I’m exceedingly good at knowing motivation, why someone chooses to act, and why someone likes or dislikes something in addition to why they debate.
Me: Ever been wrong before, because you sure are now!
Bob: The only other reason you could be doing it, is that you enjoy discrediting people who don’t use facts, or even worse, you may want to believe that a group of people (republicans in this case) are against science and seek to confirm that belief through agent dave and others.
Me: The first part is right – I argue because I enjoy discrediting people who spew misinformation. It has nothing to do with anything else, regardless of what you believe you know about my intentions.
Bob: There are only so many reasons you could make your argument with Agent. And the one that makes the most sense is you want climate change action to be taken.
Me: No – the one that makes the most sense is the one I keep coming back to 100 times — they are wrong when they say the earth is not warming up and their “facts” do not support them. That’s all, man. That’s my only reason for continuing to talk about this topic. Nothing else.
Feel free to continue to not take me at my word, make incorrect assumptions of my intent, and wrongly believe you know why I keep talking even though I’ve consistently stayed on a single point throughout this entire debate.
October 27, 2014 at 5:55 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So Dave, we saw the story last week about the voting machine problems in Schaumberg, Il where a voter could vote Republican and it would change to vote for the Democrat. After that was pointed out to election officials, they said it was a calibration problem. To me, it was a collaboration problem. No wonder Illinois has had a succession of bad Democrat leaders. The story today is in Maryland and the same problem with their machines. Wow, and to think Democrats accuse Republicans of trying to disenfranchise voters by requiring an ID to vote. They are the biggest thieving bunch ever and will do anything to retain power. They are behind in a bunch of races so they have to see about turning it around by rigging the machines to vote their way or by multiple voting in numerous precincts because they can.
I am proud of who I am. I’m just confused how this particular article revealed me as a far left progressive. Just because I know the earth’s temperature is growing hotter? That’s a scientific fact, dude. I’ve been much further left on articles about abortion, birth control and gay rights.
You previously said: There is almost total consensus among professional scientists that the climate is currently undergoing rapid change.
Now you say: That’s a scientific fact, dude.
You were schooled on the consensus thing, but now “you know” and it’s “a scientific fact”.
Yet you belittled “agent” when he was as sure as you: So Agent, you’re not only a world-renowned economist, but a geologist and paleontogist as well? What are you doing in BF Texico selling insurance? You should be out winning a Nobel prize or something.
Honorable mention goes to this glittering name-calling gem of yours: No-one here is sayng anything about man-made anything, you moron.
OK. Rude and sarcastic, yes. Far left progressive? Not so much based on that exchange. As I said, I’ve been way further left on other issues.
And yes, I was trying to be “moderate” with my almost total consensus comment when what I really wanted to say, and ultimately did say, is that it’s a scientific fact. Both Rosenblatt and I have provided sources supporting our assertions. The other side has not provided one source that disputes the change in climate. Rosenblatt has carefully pointed out as much on more than one occasion.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
Preparedness equals raising premiums. Thanks global warming libtards. Got no one to blame but yourself for higher premiums…except Bush. Lean forward middle class, they did it to you again.
After all jack, we have to sell some more carbon credits on the exchange so Al Gore can get richer. With as much CO2 being emitted on the left, they would have a very high bill to pay.
I love it when you right wing, science-denying zealots continue campaigning against Al Gore. Keep it up!!! The mid-term elections are coming up and I’ll bet you’ll find a way for him to lose this election too.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
I don’t know about you Dave, but I have a profound problem with the Global Warming/Climate Change people who tell us that it is man’s fault, the sea is rising and all coastal property will be under water in 10 years. These are the same people who say the Polar Ice Cap has melted when facts say ice covers 1.7 million more miles now than it did. How goofy are these people?
I guess NASA hasn’t been conferring with you.
“Over the past several decades Earth’s polar ice caps have gained a significant amount of attention due to their alarming decrease in land and sea ice. NASA reports that sea ice in the Arctic has been declining at a rate of nine percent per decade for the past 30 years, while Antarctica has been losing land ice mass at a rate of more than 100 cubic kilometers per year since 2002.
Due to polar ice caps current rate of decline, there have been many investigations and discoveries on glacier dynamics and their influence on the world’s climate. In the early 1950s, scientists and engineers from the US Army began drilling into polar ice caps for geological insight. These studies resulted in “nearly forty years of research experience and achievements in deep polar ice core drillings… and established the fundamental drilling technology for retrieving deep ice cores for climatologic archives.” Polar ice caps have been used to not only track current climate patterns, but also patterns over the past several thousands years due to traces of CO2 and CH4 found trapped in the ice. In the past decade, polar ice caps have shown their most rapid decline in size with no true sign of recovery. Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist at NASA, found that the “rate of warming in the Arctic over the last 20 years is eight times the rate of warming over the last 100 years.” In September 2012, sea ice reached its smallest size ever. Journalist John Vidal stated that sea ice is “700,000 sq km below the previous minimum of 4.17m sq km set in 2007″. In August 2013, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 6.09m km2, which represents 1.13 million km2 below the 1981-2010 average for that month.”
Source?
Hey Skeptical, don’t you just believe Libby on anything she writes? She is a legend in her own mind. Anyone who has a different viewpoint is instantly insulted and called a moron.
Very Skeptical,
The source is NASA, Did you miss her first sentence?
Agent,
Exactly how are you different?
When is the last time you cited a source on one of your posts?
Number 3 on NASA’s to do list from Obola himself is Muslim outreach. NASA has ZERO credit.
Talk about us blaming everything on Bush! Now you’re blaming Obama for Ebola! LOL!
Libby, do you blame Bush for AIDS in Africa. He did send a lot of aid and medicine over there and health workers to try to help them. I know you blame him for anything and everything during his terms.
Agent, you’re a fool. No, I don’t blame Bush for AIDS. Do you blame Obama for Ebola?
So Agent, are your proud of your great state of Texico for turning away a 93 year-old veteran from the voting booth because his drivers license had expired – because he DOESN’T DRIVE ANYMORE??? You guys take the cake.
Does he stop being a citizen because his driving privileges expired??? Veterans deserve better!!!
Told you NASA sucks. You see that rocket go up in smoke libtards!! It’s hard be so right most of the time, but I’ll live with it.
http://www.943wsc.com/articles/national-news-104668/watch-nasa-rocket-explodes-shortly-after-12911003/
Jack – who’s the “tard” here? Did you miss the part in the article that said the government didn’t build this rocket? This was a PRIVATE company using NASA facilities. It was a RUSSIAN rocket built using 1970’s technology.
Do you EVER research ANYTHING before spouting off?
I read the same article on NY Times and they paint a *slightly* more objective picture. They report provided a critique for how insurance companies are skirting their responsibility to cover claims from weather related losses. We all have to admit this is true, otherwise you are living under a rock.
However, the report also stated that one of the reasons for this is simply the threat of litigation and political pressure. If politicians and the legal system let insurers do their job without the threat of lawsuits then we could see insurers shift their priority to cover more claims.
Oftentimes, defending a lawsuit is more than the actual claim.
The NYT never does anything even close to “objective”.
We are all being bullied into submitting to the climate change agenda — an agenda based solely on computer models. Doesn’t it make you skeptical when you hear the certainty to which the true believers speak, yet daily we hear another story that starts out “scientists are baffled…”. Indeed, there is even a website that chronicles how hard it is to be so sure: http://www.scientistsbaffled.com
Final thought: if “man” is causing the globe to heat up, how did the Ice Age end?
Scientists are supposed to be baffled. That’s what causes them to question and do research. I didn’t see anything on your website that disputed climate change. There is almost total consensus among professional scientists that the climate is currently undergoing rapid change. Nobody is arguing that. The argument is about what is causing this rapid change.
If you want to argue that man has nothing to do with it, then fine. Don’t you can’t argue that it’s not happening. That’s just showing your ignorance.
Hey Lib, the website was to illustrate the point that “scientists” or experts in general can be and will be wrong. That’s all. But the “we are right about man made climate change” crowd wants to be immune from this.
If “Scientists are supposed to be baffled” why aren’t the climate scientists? And I’m sure you have noticed that those that to question it will get you severely beaten. You say “That’s what causes them to question and do research.” NOTE: there is no questioning it, not even with you!!
Also — since when is science governed by “consensus”?? Lib…talk about exposing ignorance. Geez. There was once “consensus” that the earth was flat, and that blood-letting can cure you of your various diseases! I’m baffled with you!!
I believe that the climate has always been in a state of flux. It didn’t just start recently. You didn’t answer the ice age question, did you? I also believe that humans are doing nothing to effect it either way. It is arrogant to think that we can, and also arrogant to think that over the many millions of years that the earth has been here, we are the ones to finally end it all, with disposable diapers and plastic water bottles no less.
First, and foremost, I am not advocating a position that states humans are causing climate change.
There IS a rapid change in climate occuring – I’m sorry but that is not in dispute.
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/151167/
What is baffling scientists is the REASON for the change. There is some evidence that it could be caused by the earth’s sensitivity to even slight orbital changes. I don’t know the reason and don’t purport to know the reason.
Regarding the last ice age, there is evidence that CO2 may have contributed to it’s end. But I’m not a scientist or expert on this subject so I don’t really know.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
I don’t know how anyone can dispute the fact of climate change and expect to be taken seriously. Now, being adament about the cause will tend to make someone look foolish.
Good one Skeptical. Many of the so called Climatologists admitted to falsifying data to support their conclusions about Global Warming and Climate Change and some have resigned in disgrace. However, there is still a narrative that somehow man is responsible, the coastal cities will be under water in 10 years, the Arctic Ice Cap will melt etc etc ad nauseum. I have seen data that the Arctic Cap has increased in size by 1.7 million square miles. Where exactly is this ice melting?
Agent – are you so stupid you can’t understand there are two separate points being made here? Nobody, I mean NOBODY, in the scientific community has not acknowledged the climate is changing.
What nobody can agree on is the cause of the change. You are such a simpleton. I shake my head in disbelief at your ignorance.
“I have seen data that the Arctic Cap has increased in size by 1.7 million square miles. Where exactly is this ice melting?”
A) Please provide the source of your data
B) You do realize there is an Arctic Cap and an Antarctic Cap, right? Also, there are other places in the world that have ice which aren’t located in either cap (Greenland, Siberia, etc.) Just because ice increases in one place doesn’t mean it’s increased AS A WHOLE on the planet.
C) If the Arctic Cap increases by 1.7 million square miles, the Antarctic Cap decreases by 3 million square miles (no source, just a hypothetical number leading into this question), and there is no change in any other ice levels across the world, would you agree that the ice caps are decreasing or – since you’re only referencing the Arctic cap – you’d still argue there is an increase in ice?
OK Rosenblat:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html
Hey Dave – I checked out your link and it’s not adding anything to this discussion. Your link talks about how the Arctic cap has increased in size. That’s already been stated by Agent and was the part that got me involved in this discussion in the first place.
I’d have to say that all of the active volcanos around the globe that are emitting gasses are the first and foremost cause of global warming. They’ve been here for millions of years and will be here for millions more. For crying out loud people…the islands of Hawaii are still being formed in the Pacific. Let’s give credit to global warming where it’s due…TO MOTHER NATURE. Just my two cents!
Thanks for your proof Dave. So Rosenblatt wanted the source, you provided it and now he blows it off and says it’s not adding anything to the discussion. Perhaps we should fly all these Global Warming people up to the North Pole and drop them off and tell them to walk back to civilization since they don’t believe evidence.
That could be the reason, Trust Me. At least you aren’t denying it’s happening like the rest of them.
Fine, I’ll bite Agent & Dave.
I believe you are looking at short-term data from the past 1 to 2 years and not long-term data, as is necessary when discussing literal CLIMATE change (CLIMATE = measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME).
So, let me counter your “arctic ice has increased” point with the fact that arctic ice is still DECREASING as it applies to CLIMATE change, even if it increased in the short-term the past 1 to 2 years.
“The long-term trend [of arctic ice] still shows a decline.”
Want my source on that? Please re-read the article you posted.
Think about it. If ice was, for arguments sake, 100 “units” in 2000, 75 “units” in 2010, 85 “units” in 2013 and 90 “units” in 2014 … sure, arctic ice technically increased (the past 2 years), but guess what — long term, as is necessary when discussing CLIMATE change as defined above, arctic ice actually decreased!!!
Listen. I’m not here to argue humans are or aren’t the sole cause of climate change. I’m just saying when your own sources say ice has decreased long-term but increased short-term, when discussing CLIMATE change (again, climate = long term trends), you’re misleading people when you say arctic ice has increased and therefore that proves there’s no climate change.
Trust me, you are right that volcanos around the world have done much to emit toxic gases. Iceland, Phillipines have seen major eruptions in recent years along with our own Mt. St Helens which was really horrible. Man had nothing to do with any of them except to suffer the consequences.
So Libby, are you proud of Illinois and Maryland offering voting machines that automatically cast the ballot for Democrats? Have you had that in Pennsylvania yet or is it a matter of time that they get caught manipulating the vote? Most veterans I know have an ID to get their VA benefits. If not, the state will provide one for them. Your insult has no weight. Legitimate legal voters have no problem voting, only the illegals trying to vote do.
I’ll take that as a yes, you’re proud of the third-world country status of your state. Classy.
It’s interesting that the only person that noticed a switch in his vote was a Republican Candidate. How about that for a suspicious happening? It could easily have been rigged by your side to cast a shadow over the entire process. I wouldn’t put it past you. We should check to see if Karl Rove has been in IL anytime lately.
BTW, FoxNews was the most trustworthy source I could find for this drivel. Another sneaky, under-handed trick by the Republicans.
Libby, that was supremely uninformed even for you. Voter fraud in Illinois and now in Maryland is a fact you can’t deal with so you blame Karl Rove??????? Yes, I am proud of my state for having ethics and honesty to the voting process. Wendy Davis is running 18 points behind and will be getting drowned on election day. We are going to send her packing to Pennsylvania where she can get more traction to her twisted ideas. You should invite her over and discuss how bad Republicans are and she can tell you how bad Greg Abbott is in his wheelchair.
Wendy Davis says Greg Abbott is wrong because he’s in a wheelchair? Source please.
Hey Rosenblat, are you having fun trolling today? Destro provided the link in the last Climate Change fiasco debate. By the way, do you remember the story some months ago about the green Scientists going down to Antarctica expecting to find penguins basking in warm waters? It seems that they got stuck in extremely thick ice and were stranded for a couple of weeks before they were rescued by helicopter since even ice breakers couldn’t get through. I guess you missed that one and Libby as well since she doesn’t watch the news.
Agent – I do not troll. Please see my most recent comment OCTOBER 27, 2014 AT 4:48 PM
Agent – I read your 10/27/14 @ 5:45PM post and you’re missing the point. Like I said before, I’m not here to argue humans are or aren’t the sole cause of climate change.
You wanted me to read the article in the first post which you claim supports your arguments that climate change is a hoax. Guess what? THAT ARTICLE SUPPORTS ME, NOT YOU!!
The second freaking line in that article reads, “Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.”
Again – I’m not saying climate change and increasing temp’s is man-made, solely man-made, or totally natural. How can you keep claiming the earth is not warming (citing a 1 to 2 year increase in arctic ice, yet ignoring the long-term CLIMATE changes that are happening) when your own source clearly states in the beginning of the article that there are rising global temperatures?
You do realize that “a little evidence” is actually, you know, still EVIDENCE? That article NEVER said global warming is NOT happening. It said there is little evidence that global warming is primarily caused by man. Like I’ve said multiple times, I’m not here to argue humans are or aren’t the sole cause of climate change – I’m just pointing out that the earth IS warming, even if there’s a 1-2 year increase in ice in a particular location.
Both of the articles I’m being told to read that proves I’m wrong aren’t valid since, as I’ve written verbatim, those articles clearly state the earth IS warming.
This discussion is getting pointless. I say the earth is warming, you and Dave say it’s not and point to a 1-2 year increase in arctic ice, you and Dave and Very Skeptical include links to support that the earth is NOT warming, yet both those articles CLEARLY state the earth IS warming. I can’t sway your opinion that the earth is not warming even though your links clearly prove you’re wrong. Absurd.
Oye vay with these people, Rosenblatt! They’re all too stubborn (and ignorant) to get it. It’s like banging your head against a wall. And Dave has the never to call others dumb. It’s like the Twilight Zone on here.
I hear you, Libby. I don’t know how many times I can say I’m not arguing WHY the climate has been changing over the long-term, just that it IS happening.
I’m still waiting for someone on their side of the discussion to explain how I’m wrong when I’ve supported my stance using their own sources. Mental gymnastics ahoy!
It doesn’t have to make sense to them for it to be true!
By saying “these people” you’ll just tick those same people off that you’re talking to. They aren’t a class of stupid people. A little bit of doubt can go a long way to finding out the truth.
I do remember talking with you about climate change. Your opinion that it might not be man made is certainly new.
That doesn’t really matter though. Climate change is occurring. Just talk softer to people like Dave and you might get somewhere. They don’t like being called stubborn and ignorant for doubting what they hear. You doubt things too and are proud of it. They want to feel proud of their doubt. Then they can make an informed decision later.
I have tried that softer, gentler Libby approach and it doesn’t work. Dave, Agent, Private Major, Destro, draetish and several others continue to insult me no matter what. I’ve given up trying to be civil only to be slapped upside the head.
(Plus the oye vay with Rosenblatt is an inside joke…)
I also say Oy Vay, I don’t mind it.
Climate data has a lot of variables. There is the Co2 monitoring, and even that is divided to ocean vs air.
Then there are temps, and there are several different methods for this. Some people only count certain monitors due to whether types of light pierce through the Earth in different ways to cause heat than other areas. Different scientists count different locations.
This is exactly why there is doubt.
So for Agent and others there is a lot of doubt to sift through. They aren’t just randomly disbelieving.
I just posted a chart for the last 2000 years. It shows a lot. Even that chart though, the scientists (ex NASA) specifically says he doesn’t use Tree ring data. Though he doesn’t say which he did use.
It sucks not being able to get many data observations that don’t have a personal agenda. If you study climate you’re going to want a problem exist to have funding and a job. If you’re a corporation you’re going to want there to be no problem so you can keep your job. If you’re a politician you’re going to want the data to appeal to your voters.
It’s a jumbled mess.
“So for Agent and others there is a lot of doubt to sift through. They aren’t just randomly disbelieving.”
I don’t agree. They have no doubt. They disbelieve period. At least I have doubt about the cause. But I don’t think there is any question that climate is changing on a more rapid pace. In fact, I haven’t seen any scientific evidence that disputs that.
Anyone on the “the climate is not changing” side care to discuss how the two articles Dave & Very Skeptical posted — believing it supported their stance that the earth’s climate is not changing — actually clearly stated that the earth is in fact warming? Or shall those folks just keep downvoting comments to try to keep this discussion away from logic and civility?
9 people already don’t like me standing up for myself, stating I’m not a troll and asking Agent to read my reply to another comment.
Anyone care to actually express their opinions, or will we just keep downvoting comments as often as possible so those views we don’t agree with are hidden from others?
Uh, the second one. You will never get any explanation from the trolls downthumbing you. They are cowards and cheats (Agent.)
I wish I had time all day to refresh my browser and downvote them multiple times too.
Really should be limited to one vote per person, not one vote per site visit.
So Rosenblatt, it depends on what the definition of is is, right? I suppose you missed the very first post on this blog from VerySkeptical and the attached article on this hoax. That is what it is from the Climate Change people, a hoax perpetrated by the left to spew their C02 nonsense. By the way, how accurate do you think the records are going back for a “very long time”? What is a long time to you? 5 years, 10 years? I think an increase of 1.7 million square miles is a significant increase in polar ice even if you still think it is not. If the indication is polar ice is being replenished, is that not a sign of normalcy and normal patterns?
Hi Agent,
I read VerySkeptical’s article and it said “…rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.” How do you interpret that to mean there aren’t rising global temperatures?
Q: By the way, how accurate do you think the records are going back for a “very long time”?
A: I don’t know. But I do feel confident the accuracy of records dating back 20+ years is pretty good.
Q: What is a long time to you?
A: Depends on the scale. A long time in a human’s lifespan is 50 years. A short time for earth would be from one epoch to another. A long time for the earth would be from one geological period to another.
I’d keep answering your questions, but I have little faith that I’d get a rational reply. If I’m wrong, I’ll be happy to keep discussing this matter with you.
So Rosenblatt, you think records going back 20 years is good for you. When you have Al Gore going around spewing his Global Warming nonsense and saying the Polar Caps will be gone by 2014, the sea drowning coastal cities and the Polar Bear on the extinction list, do you think those are smart statements? None of it has come to pass because he is a certifiable idiot. Did you know about the stats that the earth has been cooling for the past 19 years and that the hottest year on record was 1936? By the way, 50 years is not a long lifespan for a human unless you are in undeveloped Africa which is about 35. For earth, yes it is a long time and natural changes in climate have always been manifested. We had the Ice Age and the retreat from the Ice Age. Did you know that much of what is now America was covered in ice and then the Glaciers retreated. Much of what is now southern US was covered by the ocean eons ago. That doesn’t mean that man had anything to do with it. The dinasaurs perished because of the Ice age. I have little faith that I will get through to you so I expect another sarcastic reply shortly.
So Agent, you’re not only a world-renowned economist, but a geologist and paleontogist as well? What are you doing in BF Texico selling insurance? You should be out winning a Nobel prize or something.
BTW – most of the drivel you spewed above is incorrect. Read a book.
Agent – for about the 8th time, I AM NOT ARGUING MAN HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. Get off that point already – that’s not what we’re discussing and I’ve never said that. In fact, I’ve made it clear my only point here is that the earth has been warming. That’s all I’m saying.
Why bring up Al Gore? When did I ever talk about his claims, if they were right, if they were intelligent or anything of the sort. You’re directing the conversation away from the only point I’ve ever made in this entire thread…the earth is warming.
AGENT: Did you know about the stats that the earth has been cooling for the past 19 years and that the hottest year on record was 1936?
Me: STOP MISREPRESENTING FACTS!!! This is why we can’t ever understand each other. You twist and turn evidence to support your stance and fail to accurately report those facts. The hottest year on record was 1936, huh? Well, yeah, it was the hottest year on record……FOR THE USA!!! THERE’S MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!! WE’RE TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ON A GLOBAL SCALE. LOOK AT THE STATS FOR THE ENTIRE EARTH AND YOU’LL SEE AN INCREASE IN TEMP’S. This is similar to your earlier mental gymnastics that because ice in one specific region of the earth has increased that, regardless of what’s happening in the entire world, that must mean the earth’s ice is increasing everywhere.
Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.
AGENT: By the way, 50 years is not a long lifespan for a human unless you are in undeveloped Africa which is about 35.
Me: You can’t get this right either. The lowest lifespan based on a 2014 World Health Organization report is 47.5 years. Not 35, a stat I believe you just made up.
Regardless, in 2010, the world’s average lifespan was 67.2 years, but apparently 50 years (or 75% of the average lifespan in the world) isn’t a long time in your mind somehow.
AGENT: So I expect another sarcastic reply shortly.
Me: Nothing I’ve said is sarcastic. I dare you to find one line of anything I’ve written that includes sarcasm. Good luck.
Please continue to make up all the stats you want, twist facts to mislead people that you’re actually supporting your argument when the actual stats prove you’re wrong, and include links to articles that you claim support the earth isn’t warming yet ignore the parts where those reports clearly say the earth is warming all day long.
You still haven’t made one point supported by any real evidence that the earth has not been warming up over the long-term on a global scale, not just in a single region over 1-2 years.
Rosenblatt – very well said, but don’t expect Agent to be able to digest and comprehend a word you said. He’s incapable.
What Sandy showed is that the insurers understand climate and climate change extremely well. As far as I know, none went bankrupt…they were all very well prepared. They have more complex mathematical models of climate risks than anyone else. Their risk models already had multiple versions of Sandy in them, years before the event itself. If Ceres doesn’t know about that, they should go and visit RMS or AIR and learn about how the models work. It was the government that was shown to not understand the risks, not the insurance industry.
Similarly wrt the comments about withdrawing coverage from certain areas: that’s because the insurance industry understands perfectly well, based on the same detailed risk models, that the risks are too high. If the insurance industry won’t cover it, perhaps people shouldn’t be building there? Sending those kinds of signals is a very important role for the insurance industry to play in society. The government can’t play that role, because it’s too constrained by vested interests (imagine the governor of Florida telling people not to live by the coast).
I’ve never heard of Ceres before, but if they want to point out groups that aren’t doing anything about climate change, they might perhaps start with the fossil fuels industry, or the government. But the insurance industry? They must be joking.
Headline: US Having Its Coolest Year On Record
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/us-having-its-coolest-year-on-record/
So stop listening to the climate hustlers and think for yourself. I just don’t get why otherwise intelligent people sub out rational thought to others. And we all know what havoc bad subcontractors can wreak!
Even if the US is having its coolest year on record, the earth as a whole is still warming up. Climate change is all about average temperatures for THE ENTIRE WORLD, not a specific area.
(For arguments sake) If the average US temperature has decreased by 5 degrees, but the world as a whole has seen temperatures increase by 10 degrees during the same time, that means the earth is warming up even if the US is cooling down. Just because the US’s temp’s have decreased does not disprove that the climate is changing to warmer average temperatures.
Our planet is about to boil from poisonous carbon dioxide gases but insurance companies are doing nothing about it.
What’s your plan, Rog? What do we do?!
Hey Skeptical, I think Roger’s post was pretty close to the dumbest posts I have seen on this forum. Boiling from poisonous Carbon Dioxide????? Really?? Insurance companies doing nothing about it???? I am with you, what does he expect insurance companies to do about it? Tell all their insureds to not emit any CO2. Employees, do not breathe either.
Poisonous? Really? You realize without CO2 there would be no plant life, no food? Just goes to show how ignorant the far left is. If we want to reduce CO2 emissions, lets start with ignorant humans and their pets which all emit CO2.
Dave, aren’t you from Chicago? How long did it take for Lake Michigan to thaw out from last winter?
Parts of northern Lake Michigan had ice in it until April or May. Latest ice in my lifetime. And this has been one of the coolest summers I’ve ever had. One maybe 2 days over 90. Easy on my A/C bill.
Dave, did you see any of the interview with the man who founded the Weather Channel? He has studied the climate for a very long time and he absolutely contradicts the so called Climatologists who believe in man made climate change. I think I might believe an expert like him over Al Gore, wouldn’t you?
No-one here is sayng anything about man-made anything, you moron.
Do you guys have any sense of humor?
Nope. They’re Republican.
Ya got me there, Roger. Funny guy!
Oh, and by the way, saying “guys” like that is politically incorrect and um, sorta not cool. There will be repercussions. I’d lawyer up if I were you.
Hey Roger, if you were joking, sorry. But the libs posting here are truly that dumb.
No we’re not.
You are right about that Dave. They have Global Warming/Climate Change of the brain and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them. We have heard them on every article that comes out on IJ and it appears to be getting worse rather than better.
You know why nothing you have said has swayed those who believe the earth’s average temperatures are going up? Because all of you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.
If you have something useful to add to your argument that the earth has not seen an average temperature increase over the long-term (aka climate change, the topic we’re discussing here) that is actually supported by facts, I’m listening.
Just to cut off the most common theme I’ve gotten in these comments when I bring up actual facts to support my arguments, I’m not asking for facts as to WHY the earth’s temp’s have risen — solely man-made, combined man+nature, not influenced by humans — nor am I asking if temp’s or ice in a specific region have decreased, while ignoring the rest of the earth’s temp’s or ice.
I’m looking for facts to support your argument that the earth’s average temperatures have not increased. You got anything?
Crickets.
I feel like people, everyone in general, is focusing on the wrong information.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/
What is “up”? is the question.
I don’t feel like the current warming tells us a lot.
The other question is, if whether or not it is man made is not the question, then why are you simply trying to prove that the temperature is going up? That is a bit disingenuous. That is exactly what you are trying to imply.
You are debating dishonestly here. You are trying to force Agent to say the temperature is going up, in order to then say well we should at least consider man made warming is part of it. It’s a passive aggressive argument style. Agent is being aggressive to be sure, but there are always two people in an argument that goes to full caps lettering. You’re going to have to accept you’re the other half.
He just doesn’t want to agree man made warming is an issue.
So I would say, drop it.
Hey Bob – I appreciate your thoughtful response about the other comments in this thread. I would just ask one thing of you – please do not go visiting my intentions.
Your implication that if Agent/Dave/etc. agree with me that the earth is warming will cause me to follow-up with points about how man has influenced the change is wrong. I said numerous times I’m not arguing potential causes of climate change – regardless of them agreeing with me that the temp’s are going up, this will not change.
I am solely focusing on the fact they keep claiming climate change is not happening because the earth’s temp’s are not going up and ice has increased – buy they keep misrepresenting facts: arctic ice increased, but ice as a whole has not and US may have had the coldest temp’s in a while, but the average earth temp’s are rising.
I am not being passive aggressive and I have no ulterior motive behind trying to get them to understand the climate is warming up. They provide “facts” to the contrary which are wrong – either intentionally (e.g. the hottest year on record was in 1936, but that’s just a US stat and doesn’t factor in temp’s across the globe) or unintentionally (ice has increased – yet that’s only true in a specific part of the world.)
I do not appreciate being called a troll (Agent) and I do not appreciate you saying I’m being dishonest in this discussion. I’ve supported my stance with evidence, cited references, copied verbatim from their “sources” where it says the earth is warming even though they claim the article states otherwise, attempted to keep the debate on point (not discussing Gore, Dem’s vs Repub’s, small 1-2 year sample data from a specific location on the earth which doesn’t prove the earth is cooling) and keep asking a single question which goes unanswered.
My point is, always has been, and will continue to be, that the earth is warming and all long-term (climate change) evidence proves this to be true. I have no intention of getting them to agree to that point just to turn around and say “A ha! So you admit it – the earth IS warming. Gotcha – that’s because it’s due to humans. You suckers fell for my trap.”
Bob: He just doesn’t want to agree man made warming is an issue.
Me: That’s fine. It is not my attempt to get them to agree to that point. I never made such a claim and specifically stated numerous times that my sole point is the earth is warming and their claims that the earth is not warming are not accurate, even based on their own “source” material.
Bob: The other question is, if whether or not it is man made is not the question, then why are you simply trying to prove that the temperature is going up?
Me: Because Agent/Dave/Skeptical keep saying the earth isn’t warming and provide twisted evidence to “support” their continued claims, which are unsubstantiated.
Yes, I used all capital letters a few times. Sure, I agree that’s probably not the best way to express myself. However, I’m sure you can understand my frustration when asking a simple question multiple times, getting non-answers at best or distorted “evidence” that doesn’t prove their point, taking the time to discuss their points one-by-one, again asking them to answer a single question, and then getting attacked in the process.
Honestly – it would be a jerk move to advise them at least half a dozen times that I’m not arguing WHY the climate is changing, just that the earth is warming, only to then go back on those words and argue that same point.
To say I am debating dishonestly and infer my intention is to get them to agree to some man-made contribution towards a warming climate is inaccurate and something I felt (once again) that I have to write here in defense of myself.
Bob, he doesn’t want to accept there’s warming at all despite all the evidence to the contrary.
And Agent (and others) stick to this position just to be contrary. It’s not dishonest debating to ask someone for evidence to back up their statement that there is no warming &/or or no climate change. We can’t even debate whether it’s man-made or not until they admit there is a change happening.
Roenbblatt,
If you believe it is so worth correcting him, and wish to argue that temps are going up, you have a reason. There is urgency.
I could just as easily argue that red is blue and blue is green. Would you say you needed to stop me from telling people red is blue? You would not. You would probably drop it.
The urgency comes from the fact that you believe something might need to be done.
I don’t presume to know this. I do know this. So let’s stay honest with ourselves here.
I’ll just ask you out right:
Do you in fact believe that something should be done about global warming?
Rather than saying I’m assuming, let’s hear you say it. It doesn’t matter if I assumed if I assumed right. I read your other comments. It is clear what you believe on this.
In essence:
Don’t tell someone they are wrong because they assumed if they are right.
I’m exceedingly good at knowing motivation, why someone chooses to act, and why someone likes or dislikes something in addition to why they debate.
You are arguing fervently. The only other reason you could be doing it, is that you enjoy discrediting people who don’t use facts, or even worse, you may want to believe that a group of people (republicans in this case) are against science and seek to confirm that belief through agent dave and others.
I prefer to think the more positive one, that you believe action needs to be taken.
There are only so many reasons you could make your argument with Agent. And the one that makes the most sense is you want climate change action to be taken.
It seems to me his motivation may be the same as your motivation to keep hounding him about his motivation. You feel you are right and want to make a point.
It is not wrong to try to educate people that are “stuck” in denial to something one absolutely knows to be a scientific fact. The fact that they don’t want to be educated and stick to their unfounded beliefs is confounding and frustrating, which causes one to continue to try to reason with them. At some point one will throw up their hands and give up.
Bob – Even though I told you my intentions about this discussion, you again presume to know what my intentions are without taking my words at face value. I vehemently disagree with your assumption of my motives.
Bob: If you believe it is so worth correcting him, and wish to argue that temps are going up, you have a reason.
Me: Yes. I do. As I’ve said almost a dozen times, I am trying to get them to agree that temp’s are rising because they claim otherwise and provide non-evidence they feel supports their faulty argument.
Bob: I could just as easily argue that red is blue and blue is green. Would you say you needed to stop me from telling people red is blue? You would not. You would probably drop it.
Me: That’s a horrible analogy. Maybe you have color blindness and blue is green, or maybe you have more rods & cones in your eyes and perceive colors differently than others. Colors are perceived, increasing world-wide temperatures is just a fact.
Bob: The urgency comes from the fact that you believe something might need to be done. I don’t presume to know this. I do know this. So let’s stay honest with ourselves here.
Me: You are presuming once again. I’ve already said why I’m still discussing this – to get them to understand that the earth is warming up. That’s all. Pretty simple. Nothing else.
Bob: Do you in fact believe that something should be done about global warming?
Me: Sure I do, but I assure you, like I’ve said before, that is not my intent in this discussion. I feel something should be done about taxes and government handouts and foreign aid and so many other topics, but we’re not talking about that. I keep coming back to a single point I’m trying to express: the earth is warming up and those who claim otherwise are wrong based on factual evidence.
Bob: Rather than saying I’m assuming, let’s hear you say it. It doesn’t matter if I assumed if I assumed right. I read your other comments. It is clear what you believe on this.
Me: Geez man, I hope it’s clear what I believe, I keep saying the same point over and over again: the earth is warming. That’s it. I have never once even approached the topic of what, if anything, should be done or what, if anything, is contributing to the increase in temp’s. You may continue to incorrectly assume there are other points I’m trying to make and, like others, don’t take me at my word that I’m only trying to make a single point in all of these discussions.
Bob: Don’t tell someone they are wrong because they assumed if they are right.
Me: Okay. You’re wrong because you assumed incorrectly.
Bob: I’m exceedingly good at knowing motivation, why someone chooses to act, and why someone likes or dislikes something in addition to why they debate.
Me: Ever been wrong before, because you sure are now!
Bob: The only other reason you could be doing it, is that you enjoy discrediting people who don’t use facts, or even worse, you may want to believe that a group of people (republicans in this case) are against science and seek to confirm that belief through agent dave and others.
Me: The first part is right – I argue because I enjoy discrediting people who spew misinformation. It has nothing to do with anything else, regardless of what you believe you know about my intentions.
Bob: There are only so many reasons you could make your argument with Agent. And the one that makes the most sense is you want climate change action to be taken.
Me: No – the one that makes the most sense is the one I keep coming back to 100 times — they are wrong when they say the earth is not warming up and their “facts” do not support them. That’s all, man. That’s my only reason for continuing to talk about this topic. Nothing else.
Feel free to continue to not take me at my word, make incorrect assumptions of my intent, and wrongly believe you know why I keep talking even though I’ve consistently stayed on a single point throughout this entire debate.
So Dave, we saw the story last week about the voting machine problems in Schaumberg, Il where a voter could vote Republican and it would change to vote for the Democrat. After that was pointed out to election officials, they said it was a calibration problem. To me, it was a collaboration problem. No wonder Illinois has had a succession of bad Democrat leaders. The story today is in Maryland and the same problem with their machines. Wow, and to think Democrats accuse Republicans of trying to disenfranchise voters by requiring an ID to vote. They are the biggest thieving bunch ever and will do anything to retain power. They are behind in a bunch of races so they have to see about turning it around by rigging the machines to vote their way or by multiple voting in numerous precincts because they can.
So Dave & Libby, ready for 4 more years of the same ole same ole???
Sorry, dave & Always….. Out of sorts today.
Is your election a done deal now?
Did I start this melee? I haven’t seen such chaos since that Roseland mosh pit I somehow survived back in the 90s….
Nice to see Libby finally revealed as the far left progressive she really is.
Checking back out — best of luck to you all!
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. Be proud of who you are!
Vive La Différence!
I am proud of who I am. I’m just confused how this particular article revealed me as a far left progressive. Just because I know the earth’s temperature is growing hotter? That’s a scientific fact, dude. I’ve been much further left on articles about abortion, birth control and gay rights.
You previously said: <>
Now you say <>
You were schooled on the consensus thing, but now “you know” and it’s “a scientific fact”.
Yet you belittled “agent” when he was as sure as you <>
Honorable mention goes to this glittering name-calling gem of yours <>
Libby…. C’mon.
You previously said: There is almost total consensus among professional scientists that the climate is currently undergoing rapid change.
Now you say: That’s a scientific fact, dude.
You were schooled on the consensus thing, but now “you know” and it’s “a scientific fact”.
Yet you belittled “agent” when he was as sure as you: So Agent, you’re not only a world-renowned economist, but a geologist and paleontogist as well? What are you doing in BF Texico selling insurance? You should be out winning a Nobel prize or something.
Honorable mention goes to this glittering name-calling gem of yours: No-one here is sayng anything about man-made anything, you moron.
Libby…. C’mon.
OK. Rude and sarcastic, yes. Far left progressive? Not so much based on that exchange. As I said, I’ve been way further left on other issues.
And yes, I was trying to be “moderate” with my almost total consensus comment when what I really wanted to say, and ultimately did say, is that it’s a scientific fact. Both Rosenblatt and I have provided sources supporting our assertions. The other side has not provided one source that disputes the change in climate. Rosenblatt has carefully pointed out as much on more than one occasion.
Very Skeptical…..C’mon.