No Need to Panic About Global Warming?

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

First, I want to highlight something. Theories are theory… unless proven in one increment by statistics. Science is taking a hypothesis and testing it. My point on statistics is that stats can be fudged, and my other point is that there’s incentives for “climatologists” to do just that. All along my hope was to guide you into seeing that you’re “I’m 100% right on my feelings without any doubt and I’d bet my life on it” thoughts here may be less than 100%, even closer to 99% would be more reasonable. But, you’re sold on “theory”. Basically, the original article did just that, they said don’t base policy on this theory right now. I, personally, think we should certainly avoid evident pollution (oil spill, etc), but I don't think policy should be centered around the issue of Global Warming.

Second, as for specifics…

I’d answer your questions with… I’m not 100% sure, besides the first one.

It’s important to mention that even you stated “believe” in your question for part 2 (which is clearly a theory), and for question 3, that would be heavily answered with statistics. All of this gets to my points earlier in the thread.

Anyway, I have other questions…

Why, despite increasing greenhouse gases, did the rise in the earth’s temperature stall for 10 plus years? Are greenhouse gases the driver of climate? If there’s warming, which there hasn’t been for ten or so years, how would we know it’s caused by us? Could it be caused by solar influences? Does cloud movement, sun radiation and heat from the ocean play any part here? How much of a role does CO2 play when it’s relatively small portion of the atmosphere? What’s causation and what’s correlation? Do other planets follow our cooling or warming?

Most importantly,... how do scientists properly account for all of these variables and controls when proving, with 100% certainty, that this phenomenon is occurring constantly and we are the one's causing it.

I’m sure there are more questions too.

and again - based on this attitude ... we should do nothing about anything science teaches us ... what you are doing is arguing semantics in the face of an actual debate on the topic ... based on this - we should let people smoke wherever they want, we should be allowed to put toxic waste in your backyard ... you want to feed your kids food laced with lead? ... those scientific findings were all made with the same level of certainty if not less and also made by scientists who require grants ... so, can't be trusted right?

all your questions have been answered ... look it up yourself ... if you can't bother to educate yourself on global warming and instead want to start threads that are based on lies and mistruths - that's very disingenuous ...

inlet13

New article on the subject...


Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)


Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years


The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kxbLlV2u

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

New article on the subject...


Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)


Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years


The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kxbLlV2u

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/

:(

polaris_x

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/112 ... ts-54?bn=1

KIEV, UKRAINE—Thirty people, most of them homeless, have died of hypothermia in recent days in Ukraine, part of a surge of deaths across eastern Europe as the region grapples with an unusually severe cold spell.

In all, at least 54 people have died from the cold in Europe over the last week.

Of the victims in Ukraine, 21 were found frozen on the streets, five died in hospitals and four died in their own homes, said Emergency Situations Ministry spokeswoman Yulia Yershova.

Temperatures plunged to minus 23 C in the capital of Kyiv and elsewhere in Ukraine, as schools and nurseries closed down and authorities set up hundreds of heated tents with hot tea and sandwiches for the homeless.

Kyiv city administration head Oleksandr Popov ordered city schools and colleges closed beginning Wednesday through the end of the week, as temperatures are expected to drop to minus 28 C.

“They will be on a break at least until Monday,” Popov said on his website.

In Poland, five people died of hypothermia in the last 24 hours, bringing the death toll from the cold to 15 in the last four days, the national police said.

Temperatures sunk Tuesday to minus 27 C in the southeastern Polish city of Ustrzyki Gorne — and forecasts predicted minus 29 C in the region overnight.

In Russia, one person died late Monday of the cold in Moscow, where temperatures fell to minus 21 C, the city’s health department said. The Russian Emergencies Ministry is not reporting deaths across the country yet.

brianlux

Look hard enough and you will find a few "scientific reports" refuting global warming. Yet without much left effort, you'll find an overwhelming number of well cited, intelligent reports confirming global warming. In fact, with a little effort, you'll be falling over the piles of reports citing clear evidence of global warming.

Better yet, use your five sense. Things are changing in nature.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but to ignore the overwhelming evidence of global warming seems like either denial or a strong interest in keeping one's big oil stocks afloat. What else could explain this viewpoint?

JonnyPistachio

This year tied 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.92 degrees F above the 20th century average of 57.0 degrees F. This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 1.15 degrees F above average.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... stats.html

This whole article was very good ^^^
NOAA announces two additional severe weather events reached $1 billion damage threshold, raising 2011’s billion-dollar disaster count from 12 to 14 events

whygohome

A word on why climate change will lead to record cold weather in some parts of the globe:
Posted from a book review/summary/analysis of James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency. Sorry, I'm at work, and this was easier than typing it up myself. And, just as adequate.

Here is the argument that novelist James Howard Kunstler presents in this most engaging narrative:

(1) We have a "one-time endowment of concentrated, stored solar energy"--i.e., oil.

(2) At this point in history, give or take a few years, most of that stored solar energy will be gone. ("Peak oil" is upon us.)

(3) The unprecedented growth of our society is predicated upon cheap energy and needs a continued supply of it to maintain itself.

(4) That growth consists largely of a gigantic highway and road superstructure with massive suburban developments in places that cannot sustain their populations without cheap oil ("nobody walks in L.A.")

(5) This land use structure is particularly and exclusively designed for the machines of cheap oil, cars, 18-wheelers, SUVs, etc., which will become too expensive to run as the oil patch rapidly depletes.

(6) There is no substitute for oil--not coal, not nuclear power, not solar cells, not wind power, not hydroelectric power, not hydrogen fuel cells, not cold fusion, not corn oil--nothing will be adequate. The idea that human ingenuity will come up some sort of alternative fuel at the price we are paying today is just a pipe dream.

(7) Our government has its head in the sand.

Kunstler augments his argument with these major points:

One, regardless of what energy source we might dream will replace oil, we will have to build the structures--nuclear plants, hydrogen fuel "stations," solar panels the size of New Mexico in the aggregate, massive forests of wind mills, etc.--from an oil platform, at least to begin with. Note that we now use energy from oil to mine coal and to build wind propellers. We use energy from oil to build nuclear reactors. Even solar panels require an investment of energy up front to build the panels. These are massive investments that nobody is really planning on. By the time we get our heads out of our wahzus it will be too late: there won't be enough cheap oil left to build the infrastructures necessary for a transition to alternative energy.

Point two is that our gargantuan agribusiness is almost totally dependant on fossil fuels to (1) manufacture fertilizer; (2) to run the machines that plow the fields and harvest the crops; and (3) to fuel the pumps that pump irrigation water up from aquifers or from elsewhere.

Point three is that we are also running out of water. Desalination requires massive amounts of energy. The fossil aquifers are rapidly being depleted. Every year water must be pumped from greater depths until the aquifers run dry. Even aquifers that naturally replenish are being drained faster than they can replenish.

Point four is global warming. Suffice it to say that some places may go under water and other places may experience unpredictable climate change. The Gulf Stream may cease to run, throwing much of Europe into something close to an ice age while tropical conditions with topical diseases will move north.

Point five is that globalization, which is currently making us in the developed world rich--indeed richer than any peoples before in human history--is really a ponzi scheme in which we rob the future in order to pay for current prosperity. Additionally, we are exploiting the labor and resources of others to support our high standard of living. When oil runs out, our ability to benefit from globalization will be greatly diminished and consequently our standard of living will plummet.

The net result of all this, according to Kunstler, will be starvation, war, pestilence, and at best a reversion to a standard of living that prevailed before the oil window opened. Human populations will shrink until they reach an equilibrium with the natural resources of the planet.

This is the salient point behind Kunstler's argument, namely that we have already, many times over, exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the planet, and are currently being artificially and temporarily subsisted by a one-time beneficence that cannot be replaced. When oil becomes too expensive for the masses, the result will be what he calls "The Long Emergency" which will be extremely painful at best and at worse catastrophic. Already he sees the wars for oil being fought, and further down the line, he predicts wars for water.

I agree with Kunstler that we have too many people on the planet. And I agree that our government and governments elsewhere have their heads in the sand. However what I see happening is a long glide from oil to coal (and attendant pollution) to a great reliance on nuclear energy (with all it dangers) to gradually reduced populations, to a gradually reduced standard of living (especially in the US)--which might not be so bad. We would have less obesity and chronic illness caused by too much consumption and too little physical activity.

But I disagree that the "long emergency" will be as terrible as Kunstler envisions. As long as the slide down the slope is gradual, human beings will adjust to it, as we have adjusted to the many changes that have taken place since we left the hunting and gathering way of life thousands of years ago.

In particular, I think even Detroit can make small cars that get 100 miles to the gallon. At the same time I observe that commuters today in and out of our cities travel at an average speed of around 30 MPH. I think we can commute in bicycles at almost that speed. What really needs doing is a massive re-education and relearning program leading to a complete change in the cultural ethos so that we value living modestly within our means and in harmony with the planet's resources. This means gradually reducing our numbers and our demands on the earth so that we return to being part of the earth's ecology, not its cancer.

JonnyPistachio

whygohome wrote:

A word on why climate change will lead to record cold weather in some parts of the globe:
Posted from a book review/summary/analysis of James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency. Sorry, I'm at work, and this was easier than typing it up myself. And, just as adequate.

Here is the argument that novelist James Howard Kunstler presents in this most engaging narrative:

(1) We have a "one-time endowment of concentrated, stored solar energy"--i.e., oil.

(2) At this point in history, give or take a few years, most of that stored solar energy will be gone. ("Peak oil" is upon us.)

(3) The unprecedented growth of our society is predicated upon cheap energy and needs a continued supply of it to maintain itself.

(4) That growth consists largely of a gigantic highway and road superstructure with massive suburban developments in places that cannot sustain their populations without cheap oil ("nobody walks in L.A.")

(5) This land use structure is particularly and exclusively designed for the machines of cheap oil, cars, 18-wheelers, SUVs, etc., which will become too expensive to run as the oil patch rapidly depletes.

(6) There is no substitute for oil--not coal, not nuclear power, not solar cells, not wind power, not hydroelectric power, not hydrogen fuel cells, not cold fusion, not corn oil--nothing will be adequate. The idea that human ingenuity will come up some sort of alternative fuel at the price we are paying today is just a pipe dream.

(7) Our government has its head in the sand.

Kunstler augments his argument with these major points:

One, regardless of what energy source we might dream will replace oil, we will have to build the structures--nuclear plants, hydrogen fuel "stations," solar panels the size of New Mexico in the aggregate, massive forests of wind mills, etc.--from an oil platform, at least to begin with. Note that we now use energy from oil to mine coal and to build wind propellers. We use energy from oil to build nuclear reactors. Even solar panels require an investment of energy up front to build the panels. These are massive investments that nobody is really planning on. By the time we get our heads out of our wahzus it will be too late: there won't be enough cheap oil left to build the infrastructures necessary for a transition to alternative energy.

Point two is that our gargantuan agribusiness is almost totally dependant on fossil fuels to (1) manufacture fertilizer; (2) to run the machines that plow the fields and harvest the crops; and (3) to fuel the pumps that pump irrigation water up from aquifers or from elsewhere.

Point three is that we are also running out of water. Desalination requires massive amounts of energy. The fossil aquifers are rapidly being depleted. Every year water must be pumped from greater depths until the aquifers run dry. Even aquifers that naturally replenish are being drained faster than they can replenish.

Point four is global warming. Suffice it to say that some places may go under water and other places may experience unpredictable climate change. The Gulf Stream may cease to run, throwing much of Europe into something close to an ice age while tropical conditions with topical diseases will move north.

Point five is that globalization, which is currently making us in the developed world rich--indeed richer than any peoples before in human history--is really a ponzi scheme in which we rob the future in order to pay for current prosperity. Additionally, we are exploiting the labor and resources of others to support our high standard of living. When oil runs out, our ability to benefit from globalization will be greatly diminished and consequently our standard of living will plummet.

The net result of all this, according to Kunstler, will be starvation, war, pestilence, and at best a reversion to a standard of living that prevailed before the oil window opened. Human populations will shrink until they reach an equilibrium with the natural resources of the planet.

This is the salient point behind Kunstler's argument, namely that we have already, many times over, exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the planet, and are currently being artificially and temporarily subsisted by a one-time beneficence that cannot be replaced. When oil becomes too expensive for the masses, the result will be what he calls "The Long Emergency" which will be extremely painful at best and at worse catastrophic. Already he sees the wars for oil being fought, and further down the line, he predicts wars for water.

I agree with Kunstler that we have too many people on the planet. And I agree that our government and governments elsewhere have their heads in the sand. However what I see happening is a long glide from oil to coal (and attendant pollution) to a great reliance on nuclear energy (with all it dangers) to gradually reduced populations, to a gradually reduced standard of living (especially in the US)--which might not be so bad. We would have less obesity and chronic illness caused by too much consumption and too little physical activity.

But I disagree that the "long emergency" will be as terrible as Kunstler envisions. As long as the slide down the slope is gradual, human beings will adjust to it, as we have adjusted to the many changes that have taken place since we left the hunting and gathering way of life thousands of years ago.

In particular, I think even Detroit can make small cars that get 100 miles to the gallon. At the same time I observe that commuters today in and out of our cities travel at an average speed of around 30 MPH. I think we can commute in bicycles at almost that speed. What really needs doing is a massive re-education and relearning program leading to a complete change in the cultural ethos so that we value living modestly within our means and in harmony with the planet's resources. This means gradually reducing our numbers and our demands on the earth so that we return to being part of the earth's ecology, not its cancer.

Good read, thanks.

polaris_x

whygohome wrote:

Point five is that globalization, which is currently making us in the developed world rich--indeed richer than any peoples before in human history--is really a ponzi scheme in which we rob the future in order to pay for current prosperity. Additionally, we are exploiting the labor and resources of others to support our high standard of living. When oil runs out, our ability to benefit from globalization will be greatly diminished and consequently our standard of living will plummet.

In particular, I think even Detroit can make small cars that get 100 miles to the gallon. At the same time I observe that commuters today in and out of our cities travel at an average speed of around 30 MPH. I think we can commute in bicycles at almost that speed. What really needs doing is a massive re-education and relearning program leading to a complete change in the cultural ethos so that we value living modestly within our means and in harmony with the planet's resources. This means gradually reducing our numbers and our demands on the earth so that we return to being part of the earth's ecology, not its cancer.

yup ...

brianlux

whygohome wrote:

A word on why climate change will lead to record cold weather in some parts of the globe:
Posted from a book review/summary/analysis of James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency.

JHK receives a lot of flack for having attitude, being cranky (which is a bit ironic because he has a great, biting sense of humor), etc., but he really know his stuff and is well respected by others who study climate, peak oil and related issues. He's well worth reading.

inlet13

Earth's polar ice melting less than thought:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/08/earths-polar-ice-melting-less-than-thought

New research - Himalaya's and nearby peaks have lost no ice in the past 10 years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122

Researcher - "I feel duped on climate change"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

Earth's polar ice melting less than thought:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/08/earths-polar-ice-melting-less-than-thought

New research - Himalaya's and nearby peaks have lost no ice in the past 10 years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122

Researcher - "I feel duped on climate change"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

:(

Thirty Bills Unpaid

inlet13 wrote:

Earth's polar ice melting less than thought:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/08/earths-polar-ice-melting-less-than-thought

New research - Himalaya's and nearby peaks have lost no ice in the past 10 years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122

Researcher - "I feel duped on climate change"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

Do you know there are 'intellects' that deny the Holocaust?

You seem Hell bent on trying to convince people we are overreacting to global warming. Is this to ease your anxiety or do you actually believe it?

lukin2006

Why can't people move past is global warming real or not. I would think everyone would like to see much less waste, less pollution...etc.. I would like to see the discussion turn to reducing waste...why can't we all agree that the climate has changed, where I live in Canada I can count on 1 hand the number of days that it was extremely cold, this past weekend I was wearing a fall jacket in February!!!

Some pet pet peeves of mine I would like to see addressed is bottled water, why are people buying it by the caseload still? Packaging why are so many companies still using the hard non recyclable plastic? However I have made 2 purchases recently where almost all the packaging was cardboard (HP Printer, Western Digital hard drive, good for those companies). Is it time for the government to legislate packing material, force water bottle manufacturers and beverage manufacturers to pit a deposit on there products?

Jeanwah

lukin2006 wrote:

Some pet pet peeves of mine I would like to see addressed is bottled water, why are people buying it by the caseload still? Packaging why are so many companies still using the hard non recyclable plastic? However I have made 2 purchases recently where almost all the packaging was cardboard (HP Printer, Western Digital hard drive, good for those companies). Is it time for the government to legislate packing material, force water bottle manufacturers and beverage manufacturers to pit a deposit on there products?

Right to the bold part! It's more feasible to put a filter on your water pump or even your fridge than buying bottled water! I don't get it either. And I agree with you with the need for people to move past the global warming "debate". Focusing on sides solves absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

polaris_x

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Do you know there are 'intellects' that deny the Holocaust?

You seem Hell bent on trying to convince people we are overreacting to global warming. Is this to ease your anxiety or do you actually believe it?

i know it's being thrown out a lot lately but these posts are essentially trolling posts ... right from the get go - i told him that his just pasting links was disingenuous because they all lacked credibility ... proving it also ... then last week he posts an article that was clearly taken out of context and i proved it again ... and he doesn't comment on it ... and now he posts more bs articles that do nothing to combat the science behind global warming ... he even has the gall to post an article about a guy who actually worked fro SHELL oil ...

it's like me starting a thread about how cigarettes are good for people ... and then just continue to post links put forth by the tobacco industry ...

it's sad and regrettable that he chooses this approach ... :(

inlet13

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Earth's polar ice melting less than thought:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/08/earths-polar-ice-melting-less-than-thought

New research - Himalaya's and nearby peaks have lost no ice in the past 10 years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122

Researcher - "I feel duped on climate change"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

Do you know there are 'intellects' that deny the Holocaust?

You seem Hell bent on trying to convince people we are overreacting to global warming. Is this to ease your anxiety or do you actually believe it?

First, in my opinion, the concept of Global Warming and the Holocaust are not similar at all. One is a theory, with some empirical data backing it up, yet with some empirical holes in their methodology and data. The other was an act of genocide of millions of Jewish people. I feel that trying to liken the two is silly, and shows an inherent bias in an approach to both Global Warming and the Holocaust. But, that's my opinion. I believe most individuals would side with me here. Is that the case here at a liberal rock band's message board? Probably not... but, outside this bubble... it is.

Second, I am not hell bent on convincing anyone of anything. I am simply adding a piece to a discussion on a important topic; a topic that's typically muted in favor of one conceptual theory. Just because you don't like the fact that there are individuals who don't believe Global Warming is quite the problem that you do, does not make them any less credible or you any more credible. In fact, I would say, not listening to those who possess a different theory on the subject means you lack an open mind. A discussion on any theory, which we are attempting to be prove empirically, should involve a two-way dialogue.... not a one-way monologue. Your post, may provide evidence that you don't want to hear any information from the other side. That's not a good thing in my humble opinion, because it shows that if there were credible statistics disproving this theory, you most likely would not listen anyway.

Enjoy.

polaris_x

lukin2006 ... the national park service in the states is no longer selling bottled water in the grand canyon ... that is huge statement ... first, it was a significant expense to put in all these extra fountains and second, i'm pretty sure they generated quite a bit of revenue from bottled water sales ...

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

First, in my opinion, the concept of Global Warming and the Holocaust are not similar at all. One is a theory, with some empirical data backing it up, yet with some empirical holes in their methodology and data. The other was an act of genocide of millions of Jewish people. I feel that trying to liken the two is silly, and shows an inherent bias in an approach to both Global Warming and the Holocaust. But, that's my opinion. I believe most individuals would side with me here.

Second, I am not hell bent on convincing anyone of anything. I am simply adding a piece to a discussion on a important topic; a topic that's typically muted in favor of one conceptual theory. Just because you don't like the fact that there are individuals who don't believe Global Warming is quite the problem that you do, does not make them any less credible or you any more credible. In fact, I would say, not listening to those who possess a different theory on the subject means you lack an open mind. A discussion on any theory, which we are attempting to be prove empirically, should involve a two-way dialogue.... not a one-way monologue. Your post, may provide evidence that you don't want to hear any information from the other side. That's not a good thing in my humble opinion, because it shows that if there were credible statistics disproving this theory, you most likely would not listen anyway.

Enjoy.

but the problem is that you are not posting credible discussion points ... you are posting lies and propaganda pieces ... you want to be a shill for big oil ... so, be it ... at least admit to it instead of under this false guise of contributing to an important discussion ... especially on a topic you still choose not to educate yourself on ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

First, in my opinion, the concept of Global Warming and the Holocaust are not similar at all. One is a theory, with some empirical data backing it up, yet with some empirical holes in their methodology and data. The other was an act of genocide of millions of Jewish people. I feel that trying to liken the two is silly, and shows an inherent bias in an approach to both Global Warming and the Holocaust. But, that's my opinion. I believe most individuals would side with me here.

Second, I am not hell bent on convincing anyone of anything. I am simply adding a piece to a discussion on a important topic; a topic that's typically muted in favor of one conceptual theory. Just because you don't like the fact that there are individuals who don't believe Global Warming is quite the problem that you do, does not make them any less credible or you any more credible. In fact, I would say, not listening to those who possess a different theory on the subject means you lack an open mind. A discussion on any theory, which we are attempting to be prove empirically, should involve a two-way dialogue.... not a one-way monologue. Your post, may provide evidence that you don't want to hear any information from the other side. That's not a good thing in my humble opinion, because it shows that if there were credible statistics disproving this theory, you most likely would not listen anyway.

Enjoy.

but the problem is that you are not posting credible discussion points ... you are posting lies and propaganda pieces ... you want to be a shill for big oil ... so, be it ... at least admit to it instead of under this false guise of contributing to an important discussion ... especially on a topic you still choose not to educate yourself on ...

Ha ha ha.. you crack me up. You claim anyone who doesn't fully back Global Warming is a liar or is selling propaganda. You went as far to claim I'm a troll? Really? If so, you're a troll. Everyone here is a troll, unless they completely agree? You kidding?

You have to get your head out of the sand. You don't want a discussion, you want a monologue. You go spouting that putting forward new information on a subject is bad. Are you planning on burning books you don't agree with next?