QuoteAccording to an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, there's 'no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy'. From the article: 'The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.'"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
I wish I could believe this. If there was overwhelming evidence that global warming was not occurring, no one would be happier than me. However, I am immediately skeptical of a mere 16 scientists published in the Rupert-Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal vs. an overwhelming number of climate scientists who say otherwise. For example, here's a letter that the Wall Street editorial board refused to publish from the United States National Academy of Sciences which the WSJ refused to publish in response:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full.pdf
Two additional points
- Why is global warming so much more controversial than other environmental issues which affected our globe and which we tackled successfully, even with just as much evidence that it was occurring? Acid rain was never as controversial, nor the fact that our ozone was evaporating. And yet global warming is always attacked as "controversial" science even with much more evidence saying that it's happening. Something tells me it's because the industries most affected by ozone depletion and acid rain (CFC's, for example) did not have nearly as much lobbying power in the US as industries affected by carbon dioxide
- Global warming is only one reason for moving to clean energy. There's no question our world would benefit by moving away from fossil fuels to cleaner energy, both from an environmental and political perspective (for example, the US no longer having to borrow money from China to pay for oil in the Middle East and then fighting wars over there which cause resentment from the populace that then attacked on on 9/11...you get the point). The problem here is oil companies and their unbalanced influence on US politics through money, which is only made worse by the new super-PACs.
End rant
I have been a global warming sceptic from the beginning. Our climate has naturally changed throughout the many years of the earths existence, oceans have dried up in some areas and the land masses continue to move. Nothing on this planet is consistent over long periods of time, including global temperatures.
There have been many skeptical scientists from the beginning, but they are certainly in the minority. Many of those who disagree with the status quo are of the mind we are actually heading into another ice age. I think most scientists believe this now which is why they formally changed the term to "global climate change." However, it is not man-made. I'm sure we have had a small influence on all this, but not enough to make a difference.
Due to this belief in man-made climate change, governments have seized even more control over the economic sector. Not to mention the crony-capitalism that is out in the open with companies like Solyndra. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/obamas-solyndra-problem/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/obamas-solyndra-problem/). They have used it as an excuse for cap and trade, more regulations on business, greater regulations on the car industry, as well as creating a market for companies that many in the (U.S.) government have had a history with.
I have also read (I can't remember the source, so take it how you like) that a lot of the climate record data was taken from inner city areas with a lot of asphalt, which in turn makes the temperatures record higher than they actually are.
The other problem I have with global warming is that a few degree increase in temperatures is not a bad thing. In fact it's far more favorable than declining temperatures. Our crops tend to grow better in sunlight and warmth rather than cold and ice.
Governments around the world are also releasing small pieces of aluminum among other things, in order to combat global climate change. The typical exhaust from planes dissipates within a very short period, however some of these trails linger in the sky for hours. http://ecofriendlyconsult.com/chemtrails-2011/ (http://ecofriendlyconsult.com/chemtrails-2011/)
The above post may be a bit scattered, but my intention is not to start a serious debate. I'm just giving my minority opinion.
ThinkAnarchy, with all due respect you're wrong for a number of reasons:
- The Industrial Age on earth is unprecedented in its effect on the Earth as compared to the rest of its history. To just claim things have always changed and we should just stick our heads in the sand and ignore it is irresponsible. Also, there's an unquestionable trend of hotter temperatures: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/12/132865502/last-year-was-the-warmest-year-on-record-again
- "Most scientists" do not believe the earth is cooling. 97% of scientists believe in global warming: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure. The term "global climate change" has nothing to do with a shift in attitude.
- Solyndra failed because of poor business decisions, not "crony capitalism", as well as the fact that China is flooding the market with cheap solar panels. Cap and trade, which you demonize, was successfully used to battle acid rain. It was a Republican idea, in fact. Why is it suddenly some kind of evil word? And what evil regulations are you talking about, exactly?
- The myth about climate record data being inaccurate because it was taken from inner city areas has been debunked even by former skeptic Richard Muller: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html
- Your claim that crops benefit from higher temperatures is inaccurate. Long, hot summers are detrimental to crop yields. See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/science/earth/06warming.html
- The chemtrails/comtrails conspiracy theory is also not real. See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/aviation/contrails.pdf
Quote from: Firebird on January 29, 2012, 11:39:33 PM
ThinkAnarchy, with all due respect you're wrong for a number of reasons:
- The Industrial Age on earth is unprecedented in its effect on the Earth as compared to the rest of its history. To just claim things have always changed and we should just stick our heads in the sand and ignore it is irresponsible. Also, there's an unquestionable trend of hotter temperatures: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/12/132865502/last-year-was-the-warmest-year-on-record-again
First of all, don't put words in my mouth. I never said we "should stick our heads in the sand." Yes, the industrial age was unprecedented in the earths history, but I have still not seen data to suggest it has had a noticeable impact on climate. The graph shows a whopping 0.6 degree increase in the past 20 years. A net change of about one degree since 1880. This isn't proof. Simply because the slight fluctuation lines up with a switch to industry does not prove industry is seriously impacting climate. As I have said, the climate was not stable before, why should it be stable now. In my opinion, a increase of 1 degree since 1880 is not cause for concern, nor proof that we are causing it.
Quote
- "Most scientists" do not believe the earth is cooling. 97% of scientists believe in global warming: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure. The term "global climate change" has nothing to do with a shift in attitude.
I originally had a typo, so I'm not sure if you replied before I fixed it. A large portion of the minority who disagree with global warming believe we are actually due for a mini ice-age.
Quote
- Solyndra failed because of poor business decisions, not "crony capitalism", as well as the fact that China is flooding the market with cheap solar panels. Cap and trade, which you demonize, was successfully used to battle acid rain. It was a Republican idea, in fact. Why is it suddenly some kind of evil word? And what evil regulations are you talking about, exactly?
Solyndra only received tax payer money because it is a "green" company. Most of these "green" companies fail despite getting handouts from the government. They get tax payer subsidies/loans, despite not having a sustainable business model. I'm thinking you don't know what "crony capitalism" is. It is when a company is in bed with the government and gets preferential treatment because of it. Oil companies pay a fortune in taxes, while "green" companies that don't have a market, receive money from the government.
Also I'm not a Republican, I could care less which party it was who proposed cap/trade. I don't think the Cap/trade thing ever got passed though, so it may be a moot point.
The subsidies are my biggest issue associated with climate change. However the new emission standards for cars is a problem, seeing as I have not seen justification for this. It may slightly help the environment, but it also can cause higher prices. I have also heard, but am not sure if it's correct, that older cars will fail the test to receive an inspection sticker if they don't meed EPA requirements. If that is true, it only hurts the poor who can't afford new cars, or can't afford to get theirs fixed.
Quote
- The myth about climate record data being inaccurate because it was taken from inner city areas has been debunked even by former skeptic Richard Muller: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html
Fair enough, but we are still talking about 1 degree since 1880.
Quote
- Your claim that crops benefit from higher temperatures is inaccurate. Long, hot summers are detrimental to crop yields. See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/science/earth/06warming.html
I never said that crops can grow 8 ft. from the sun, but most do prefer warmer temperatures over colder. However, what other possible reasons were there for a smaller crop yield? Again, a few years of a lower yield is not proof we need to be alarmed. Assuming everything in that article was accurate, it isn't enough data to prove anything. There reasons for the reason in a rise in food prices is also overly simplistic.
Quote
- The chemtrails/comtrails conspiracy theory is also not real. See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/aviation/contrails.pdf
You can't link to a government site that says they aren't doing anything and expect me to take that as evidence.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 30, 2012, 12:39:49 AM
I never said that crops can grow 8 ft. from the sun, but they do prefer warmer temperatures over colder.
It depends on what you are growing; some crops like cooler weather. Heat waves are also typically associated with drought and that is bad for both crops and, subsequently, livestock.
Quote from: Whitney on January 30, 2012, 12:45:02 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 30, 2012, 12:39:49 AM
I never said that crops can grow 8 ft. from the sun, but they do prefer warmer temperatures over colder.
It depends on what you are growing; some crops like cooler weather. Heat waves are also typically associated with drought and that is bad for both crops and, subsequently, livestock.
Agreed, but most prefer sunlight. Yes droughts are certainly not good for crops, but neither are freezes. They obviously like an ideal temperature and climate, but we have more options of what to grow in warmer climates as opposed to colder.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 30, 2012, 12:50:03 AM
Agreed, but most prefer sunlight.
Temperature is not dependent on sunlight other than the difference between shade and open areas...so that's unrelated.
Also keep in mind that the southern parts of the US (basically draw a line about as high up as the oklahoma texas border) all the way down the equator and and equal distance on the other side would potentially become dessert areas if average temperatures got too hot; some of them already are.
Quote from: Whitney on January 30, 2012, 01:09:38 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 30, 2012, 12:50:03 AM
Agreed, but most prefer sunlight.
Temperature is not dependent on sunlight other than the difference between shade and open areas...so that's unrelated.
Also keep in mind that the southern parts of the US (basically draw a line about as high up as the oklahoma texas border) all the way down the equator and and equal distance on the other side would potentially become dessert areas if average temperatures got too hot; some of them already are.
I know, it was admittedly poorly worded on my part. I also get side tracked and argue about things that are unimportant which is why I'm not good at debating. I'm trying to work on that though. ;)
Regardless, how hot is too hot in your eyes? Extreme temperatures in either direction are bad; I'm not debating that. We are talking about a difference of around 1 degree over a 200 + year period however. So let me simply concede that high temps as well as low temps are bad for plants. Even with that concession, the slight fluctuation in our global temperatures doesn't seem alarming to me. It also does not suggest we are responsible for the increase seeing as we all know the climate naturally fluctuates.
I will agree the plants were a bad argument, but it isn't at all key to my position.
The Sahara desert is migrating into Italy and Spain. Areas of the South in the USA are becoming deserts. Ice coverage of the planet is decreasing at an alarming rate. There is no doubt we're warming. Whether it is due to humans or not is, in my mind, the only possible debate. Thing is, as humans we get a bit arrogant over the idea that we can possibly destroy the world. Earth is great at balancing out imbalances. If we are causing it, and if we don't fix it, then the Earth will simply exterminate large populations of people through famine, disasters, diseases, and wars over diminishing resources.
I'm actually more concerned about the pollutants affecting water supply, crops, fish etc more than what it may potentially be doing to climate and also the state of our energy supply sources...but what might slow climate change is the same things we would need to be doing to reduce pollution and find alternative energy sources. In short, I'm saying I don't really think it's matters if pro climate change advocates are wrong because these steps should be considered important anyway.
Quote from: Whitney on January 30, 2012, 01:53:19 AM
I'm actually more concerned about the pollutants affecting water supply, crops, fish etc more than what it may potentially be doing to climate and also the state of our energy supply sources...but what might slow climate change is the same things we would need to be doing to reduce pollution and find alternative energy sources. In short, I'm saying I don't really think it's matters if pro climate change advocates are wrong because these steps should be considered important anyway.
I can't respond to this without the original thread devolving into an an-cap vs. statism debate. All I will say is this: if the issue is pollutants, why does the establishment not say so? Why not make it an issue about pollutants? Also, from what I remember, haven't they said the biggest problem in regard to climate change is the emission of CO2? I wouldn't classify that as a pollutant. To much of it is not good, but it is also a vital compound in our environment. If I'm wrong let me know; I'm not a scientist.
If they were to simply focus on contaminants in the water supply and similar things, it wouldn't be that big of a problem.
Also, if you believe the government is responsible for chem-trails, they are releasing even more pollutants in order to combat the climate.
There is absolutely no way I can take global warming deniers seriously. I almost bought into the whole conspiracy theory because my dad is one of them. But honestly, I just don't have enough faith to think such a vast amount of highly intelligent people can make a mistake like "huh whoops, I guess the earth has always changed climates." yeah no, it isn't even close to being that simple, and scientists have definitely accounted for all of these "chaos theory" variables that can play into it. The warming experienced alongside industry is 90% applicable to industrialization. We know of *all* the factors that cause changes in climate, and when all of these factors have been constant, and our temperatures continue to shoot up, what other explanation is there? Even people who used to deny anthropogenic global warming shifted stances multiple times from "this is causing it" to "well now I have no idea what's causing it (after getting their asses owned by evidence) but I know it just can't be humans!"
Give me a fucking break. They teach the science behind global warming in colleges as an actual fact in Geology and other relevant sciences. It is part of the curriculum right alongside evolution. You'd have to have more faith than a theist to think this is some sort of eco-terrorist scheme to hamper industry. It seems much more likely to me that the conspiracies lie in the hands of the deniers. Every time I see someone deny global warming they are backed by an oil company or something.
Here are a couple helpful links
http://aquarium.ucsd.edu/climate/Climate_Change_FAQ/
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/#Stages of Denial
I think that global warming exists, but that the role of CO2 in it is overrated.
What I like to see is that we understand the climate changes better and not be dogmatic about it.
Doubters must be allowed to doubt.
The problem is they don't realize how much of a threat it is. Like the above guy saying it's only a 1 degree increase. It's about the rapidness of change. Our society is not structured to survive widespread change if it occurs so quickly. The earth will survive, sure, and "life will find a way," but I am concerned with the sheer suffering and infringement on well-being that will result to our society by such rapid changes. It's either going to be a slow and gradual adaptation that occurs ahead of time as we prepare, or we get hit by an almost overnight wake-up call that will be too difficult to adapt to quickly.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 30, 2012, 03:20:21 AM
if the issue is pollutants, why does the establishment not say so?
Well...they do...in addition to considering CO2 a pollutant. I don't think global warming/climate change is a conspiracy. The only thing in question is to what extent humans are responsible. Considering that the oceans are already starting to warm and that is what is going to cause vast shifts in climate change then it's better to try to change our ways not being 100% on how much human offgassing has contributed rather than just shrug our shoulders. Not to mention that pretty much everything we do that releases CO2 also releases some other kind of more obvious pollutant; so the actions needed are the same anyway.
QuoteAlso, if you believe the government is responsible for chem-trails, they are releasing even more pollutants in order to combat the climate.
I don't buy into that. If they were going to try to adjust the ozone with additives they'd just do it openly; the majority of the world's citizens would be in favor if it was backed by science. Without me having to read through a dozen conspiracy theory sites, where is the proof that spraying metals up there would actually repair the ozone anyway? I remember having read many articles over they years about how scientists were trying to figure out what they could spray to fix it.
Quote from: Whitney on January 30, 2012, 01:53:19 AM
I'm actually more concerned about the pollutants affecting water supply, crops, fish etc more than what it may potentially be doing to climate and also the state of our energy supply sources...but what might slow climate change is the same things we would need to be doing to reduce pollution and find alternative energy sources. In short, I'm saying I don't really think it's matters if pro climate change advocates are wrong because these steps should be considered important anyway.
I was just this morning thinking about how we're one of the few species who seem to crap all over their nests. Why is that? We should be doing everything in our power to stop doing it. We've been polluting the planet at an alarming rate all my life. It's simply common sense that crapping in our nests (polluting our planet) is a bad idea, and evidence certainly backs that up. But humans seem to be very short sighted when it comes to any possible inconvenience. During the gas crisis in the 70s we thought we were running out of oil, so everyone wanted cars with better gas mileage, people started putting solar energy into their home designs, the government of the US had tax incentives for solar, and much more. And then we got complacent and everything went backwards. My 1984 Honda Civic SI got 42 mpg on the highway, and that was the sport version. The economy version did even better. How many cars today can match that? I think its all related. Short-sighted, profit-driven, head-in-the-sand thinking. Or not-thinking I should say. I don't understand why we have to prove whether climate change is human-induced or how much of it is. We should be doing the right thing in the first place. We should stop being the most arrogant species on the planet and stop crapping in our nests. We have only one planet. If we screw it up we're doomed and the cockroaches and crocodiles will get their chance.
Quote from: Traveler on January 30, 2012, 03:12:33 PM
But humans seem to be very short sighted when it comes to any possible inconvenience.
This. This is the core principle of right wing and centrist politics. People tend to only look at concrete changes in their own personal lives, and not what is better for the species on an objective level. "Hmm, do I want some tax money back or do I want to keep the myriad of public utilities and services that I don't have the brain power and critical thinking skills to truly evaluate because I am so short-sighted... Well duh, I need a new wide-screen TV."
There is a balancing act in all forms of politics. On one hand you have infringement on subjective freedoms of individuals, and on the other you have objective well-being for the group. Anyone who values the first is pretty messed up in the head in my opinion. What's good for the group is good for the individual, what's bad for the group is bad for the individual. What's good for the individual is neutral to the group, what's bad for the individual is also neutral to the group. It boggles my mind that people don't understand this concept. I've always put myself in everyone's shoes except my own anytime I try to form opinions. I believe that a person's opinion on something is meaningless if they are personally invested in the results of certain policies. For example, discussing the death penalty with a family that had someone murdered. Or discussing evolution with a YEC. When people are personally involved in things you cannot take their opinion with more than a grain of salt. The same applies to politics. People need to learn to step outside of the subjective human experience entirely.
Quote from: Whitney on January 30, 2012, 02:33:04 PM
Also, if you believe the government is responsible for chem-trails, they are releasing even more pollutants in order to combat the climate.
I don't buy into that. If they were going to try to adjust the ozone with additives they'd just do it openly; the majority of the world's citizens would be in favor if it was backed by science. Without me having to read through a dozen conspiracy theory sites, where is the proof that spraying metals up there would actually repair the ozone anyway? I remember having read many articles over they years about how scientists were trying to figure out what they could spray to fix it.
I don't think it's about repairing the ozone, I think the theory is that the microscopic aluminum along with other things will reflect some of the light lowering temperatures slightly. I'm not sure of the exact theory behind it, but I have seen trails from planes around where I live that don't dissipate for hours on end.
A new article about temperatures falling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 31, 2012, 06:12:17 PM
A new article about temperatures falling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Just a small bit of advice, don't post articles from the Daily Mail to back up debates they are notorious for misunderstanding and misreading science and basically everything else that isn't about celebrity's.
Regardless of global warming I think it is important for green energy, recycling, and the ilk to keep progressing as they are not just a positive for our environment but highly important for the development of humanity and other species of animals.
Quote from: Crow on January 31, 2012, 06:30:01 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 31, 2012, 06:12:17 PM
A new article about temperatures falling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Just a small bit of advice, don't post articles from the Daily Mail to back up debates they are notorious for misunderstanding and misreading science and basically everything else that isn't about celebrity's.
Regardless of global warming I think it is important for green energy, recycling, and the ilk to keep progressing as they are not just a positive for our environment but highly important for the development of humanity and other species of animals.
That is basically any newspaper. I honestly don't think they are any less credible than the NYTimes, Washington Post, etc. They all lie, misrepresent, or inaccurately report at some points.
I'm all for clean energy options. But let the businesses figure it out themselves and stop giving them subsidies.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 31, 2012, 06:42:16 PM
I'm all for clean energy options. But let the businesses figure it out themselves and stop giving them subsidies.
You really think they'd do anything about how much they offgas and where they dump their waste if government didn't regulate? The subsidies are there to encourage cleaning up their acts when it otherwise wouldn't be a profitable choice....but I would be fine with getting rid of those and just making them be cleaner if an economic study showed it was actually cheaper for consumers than the tax money going in.
Quote from: Whitney on January 31, 2012, 06:49:01 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 31, 2012, 06:42:16 PM
I'm all for clean energy options. But let the businesses figure it out themselves and stop giving them subsidies.
You really think they'd do anything about how much they offgas and where they dump their waste if government didn't regulate? The subsidies are there to encourage cleaning up their acts when it otherwise wouldn't be a profitable choice....but I would be fine with getting rid of those and just making them be cleaner if an economic study showed it was actually cheaper for consumers than the tax money going in.
Yes, the threat of civil litigation would likely be enough to prevent the dumping of waste where ever they like. As for the gas, I would have to think about it longer.
The subsidies I'm referring to are going to green energy companies in particular. Most of them don't have a profitable business model and can't produce solar panels (or another product) cheap enough to make a profit on their own, so the government gives them money to keep them afloat. If a company can't turn a profit they shouldn't be in business.
Minor subsidies to promote safer disposal of chemicals, exhaust, etc don't bother me nearly as much as those that are keeping failing companies from going bankrupt simply because they are creating a product the government prefers.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 31, 2012, 06:42:16 PM
Quote from: Crow on January 31, 2012, 06:30:01 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 31, 2012, 06:12:17 PM
A new article about temperatures falling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Just a small bit of advice, don't post articles from the Daily Mail to back up debates they are notorious for misunderstanding and misreading science and basically everything else that isn't about celebrity's.
Regardless of global warming I think it is important for green energy, recycling, and the ilk to keep progressing as they are not just a positive for our environment but highly important for the development of humanity and other species of animals.
That is basically any newspaper. I honestly don't think they are any less credible than the NYTimes, Washington Post, etc. They all lie, misrepresent, or inaccurately report at some points.
I'm all for clean energy options. But let the businesses figure it out themselves and stop giving them subsidies.
WRONG!WRONG!WRONG!WRONG!WRONG!WRONG!WRONG!WRONG!WRONG!WRONG!WRONG!WRONG!WRONG!
;D The 'Daily Fail' is notorious for its inability to get things right. It's a rag, it really is. ;D
Fair enough though, I will wait and see if any other sites report on it. So far all I have seen are links to the DM link discussing it.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 31, 2012, 07:09:30 PM
Fair enough though, I will wait and see if any other sites report on it. So far all I have seen are links to the DM link discussing it.
Well there must be something at the root of the story but the DM is very much like Fox News and about as credible. I think we just need to find the original reseach.
Quote from: Tank on January 31, 2012, 07:18:40 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 31, 2012, 07:09:30 PM
Fair enough though, I will wait and see if any other sites report on it. So far all I have seen are links to the DM link discussing it.
Well there must be something at the root of the story but the DM is very much like Fox News and about as credible. I think we just need to find the original reseach.
I was looking for it, but the daily mail didn't link to it and everything else talking about it is simply linking to the daily mail. I'm going to look into it a little more though.
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years
Here is another talking about METs findings. Checkmate bitches. :o Only kidding.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 31, 2012, 07:24:06 PM
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years
Here is another talking about METs findings. Checkmate bitches. :o Only kidding.
Which leads to http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/ the MET office response.
Quote from: Tank on January 31, 2012, 07:26:27 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 31, 2012, 07:24:06 PM
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years
Here is another talking about METs findings. Checkmate bitches. :o Only kidding.
Which leads to http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/ the MET office response.
Well, I'm still reading, but thanks, I will stop looking at daily mail links now.