Forum Home Forum Home > Forums > News from around the world
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Unstoppable Global Warming
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Unstoppable Global Warming

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 71>
WhiteWolf View Drop Down
Climate Change Denier

Joined: October/03/2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WhiteWolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Unstoppable Global Warming
    Posted: January/30/2007 at 5:40am
Finally, some common sense amid the madness. I'm glad there are people out there who are actually using their brains, rather than trying to scare the crap out of as many people as possible, use their celebrity to sound important, or hold meetings to intimidate nations into giving away free money.

Happily, I cam across this article:

Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity
Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET

Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.

Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.

The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.

“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.

The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.

Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.

Back to Top
Sponsored Links

Back to Top
WhiteWolf View Drop Down
Climate Change Denier

Joined: October/03/2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WhiteWolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/05/2007 at 4:00pm
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at
Back to Top
christophersnow View Drop Down

Joined: February/01/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 11195
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote christophersnow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/05/2007 at 5:21pm
That all sounds nice and dandy, but if it's all wrong, at least we have OSC rhetoric.

Global Warming: Fighting Off the Ice Age

I've been waiting a long time to see real science applied to global warming.

Finally, there's a bit of rationality applied to the subject.

Not that there haven't always been real scientists involved. But either they, or the people writing about their work, have been functioning like "creation scientists" -- they are already convinced, so instead of testing their own ideas, they turn whatever data comes along into "proof" of their belief in order to persuade the ignorant unbeliever.

Whether the temperature's going up or down, whether they're talking about the fall of civilizations or the disappearance of species in ancient times, it's always somehow a proof or demonstration or warning about the peril of global warming.

The sky is falling, so we must shoot the dog.

Here are the questions we've always faced on this issue:

1. Has global temperature risen?

2. If so, how much?

3. Is this out of line with temperature fluctuations in the past?

4. What have the consequences of global temperature change been so far?

5. What have the consequences of warming or cooling been in the past?

6. How rapid are the changes?

7. To what degree are today's global temperatures the result of human activities?

8. What evidence is there that current changes, if any, are part of a broad trend rather than a temporary fluctuation?

9. If human activity is causing global warming, then what is the cost of stopping those human activities compared to the cost of allowing global warming to continue?

10. When computer models are used to predict future temperature trends, how do we know that all significant variables have been included?

11. How well have these computer models predicted temperature change in the past?

12. How do we know that human activity that causes global warming is not saving us from even worse global temperature change?

Time and again, I've read the little religious testimonies from scientists and writers about science, bearing witness to their personal faith in global warming, without seeing even a hint that they have addressed any of the questions above except in the most superficial way.

Most of them seem to start with the article of faith that any unexplained phenomenon is the result of human actions, and any phenomenon resulting from human actions must be bad, and any price humans must pay to stop doing these bad things is worth it.

It's the New Calvinism: Humans are evil by nature and should be punished, even if the punishment won't solve the problem, and even if the problem is actually better than the "solution."


If you want a perfect example of this, look at the Kyoto Protocols. The consensus among serious scientists is that the Kyoto Protocols, even if they were completely implemented, would not have any serious effect on global warming for the next century.

Yet they insist that we should adopt and obey the protocols with all the force of law that international treaties have.


Because it will show that we take the problem seriously. Because it's a first step. Because it's the Right Thing.

In other words, we should blindly obey even though we know that it's pointless.

Worse yet, the Kyoto Protocols impose drastic cuts on the activities of western nations which are designed to cripple our economies. Well, no problem -- most western countries can simply ignore the protocols as they become inconvenient to follow.

Like the economic rules governing the European Community, if the big boys (France and Germany) don't want to obey them, they can simply ignore them -- while still demanding that the little guys follow the rules.

In the U.S., it's different. Treaties have a force of law second only to the Constitution and Congress cannot weaken or change the requirements of a treaty without a two-thirds majority, a burden no other western nation faces.

If we had adopted the Kyoto Protocols, we would be facing disastrous strictures in the next few years, which could not be satisfied without destroying our economy and making us a former great power.

Meanwhile, China and India, two enormous polluters, are exempted from those rules because they are "emerging nations."

In other words, the Kyoto Protocols are not about saving the world. They're about crippling the west while giving China and India and other nations a chance to "catch up."

Nobody seems to notice that if our economy collapsed, so would everybody else's. There would be no catching up. There would only be collapse for everyone.

If you thought the tsunami was bad, see what would happen if the U.S. economy suddenly went pffffft. See how many people in other nations would have any place to sell their goods. See how many would starve.

But we did not sign the Kyoto Protocols. So our economy, if it dies, will be killed by other causes.

Meanwhile, though, the Kyoto Protocols give our rivals and enemies a nice stick to beat us with. True, the protocols are ineffective at their stated purpose; true, we have no idea whether global warming is even a bad thing; true, the primary effect of the protocols is destructive; but America is Evil and Selfish for failing to sign them and abide by them.

When somebody invokes our failure to sign the Kyoto Protocols as proof that our government "doesn't care about the environment," then be assured that what you're hearing is religion or politics, not science.


In the midst of all the empty rhetoric and faith-masquerading-as-science, a bit of real science emerges now and then. As witness: an article in the March Scientific American by William F. Ruddiman, entitled "How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?"

For the first time, in all the popular articles I've seen about global climate change, here are scientists actually mentioning the single biggest cause of global warming and cooling: the changing distance and position of the Earth and the Sun.

With all the talk about human-caused "cataclysms," it's worth pointing out that the historical cataclysms -- the ice ages -- had astronomical, not environmental, causes.

The author is not concerned about advancing a "cause"; he's concerned about accounting for the evidence.

So he started with the maximum and minimum amounts of solar radiation reaching the northern hemisphere (which for various reasons, is the only half that matters in terms of global climate change). He recognized that for many millions of years Earth has been in one long ice age, interrupted by relatively brief warm periods in which solar radiation increases, the ice caps retreat, and the sea level rises.

All of human history takes place in the current warm spell between long ice ages.

Ruddiman realized, though, that based on solar radiation rhythms alone, we should already be back into a major cooling period. Instead, starting about eight thousand years ago, we have had a global climate markedly warmer than the solar radiation would predict.

Ruddiman's thesis -- which is controversial, as all new ideas are -- is that the beginning of human agriculture added just enough greenhouse gases to the atmosphere to make a significant difference in global climate.

In other words, his thesis is that, far from beginning with the industrial age, human influence over global climate has been continuous since we first started changing terrains in order to grow ever greater quantities of dietary staples. We have always affected the climate; only the degree of the effect has changed over time.

The kinds of changes we have made are exaggerations of natural changes. When the global climate warms because of astronomical changes, coastlands flood and swamplands increase. During warm summer months, the decomposition of plant life in these marshes raises the amount of methane in the atmosphere.

There is also a feedback loop. In southern Asia, strong summertime heat over land draws additional moisture from the Indian Ocean, which causes more flooding as the monsoons dump their rainfall; the methane levels then rise even further. Warmer summers also cause far northern wetlands in Asia and North America to emit more methane and warm the atmosphere further.

This feedback system naturally prolongs and intensifies the peaks of solar radiation.

But human agricultural activity in effect seems to have prolonged the warm spell for thousands of years longer than normal. About eleven thousand years ago, methane (and global temperature) peaked and then began slowly to subside as solar radiation reaching the northern hemisphere subsided.

That trend should have continued. Instead, about five thousand years ago the methane began to rise again and so did global temperature until it returned to levels similar to the peak of six thousand years before.

Previous warm periods have been remarkably uniform, since natural systems on Earth behaved in the same way in response to astronomical phenomena. But our warm period has followed a markedly different pattern. The only obvious difference is human presence.

It was five thousand years ago that farmers began systematically flooding large areas of southern China in order to grow rice under water.

In effect, they created vast new swamps. It changed the world, and not just by allowing the population of China to balloon.

Other human activities contributed. European forest-clearing and Mesopotamian irrigation had their effects, and the terracing of hillsides in southeast Asia for further rice production created even more swamps.

There are even suggestions that when human activities are sharply curtailed, the global climate begins to revert to its natural (based on solar radiation) ice-age climate. When the Black Death left Europe relatively depopulated and much land turned back into forest, there was a corresponding cooling of the climate. As the population bounced back and forest lands were again brought under cultivation, the temperature rose.

Sometimes one change in human behavior balances another. In America, for instance, vast regions that were once heavily farmed have reverted to forest, because it is now cheaper to grow all our grains in the midwest and ship them to the forested east and southeast. However, this has happened alongside a sharp growth in carbon dioxide emissions. So you could either say that forest regrowth has hidden the evil effects of industrialization -- or that industrialization has hidden the evil effects of reforestation.

Or maybe we could stop thinking of it as good and evil and, as Ruddiman suggests, simply measure what the climate usually would be, compared to what it is; isolate the causes of the difference; and then make rational, calibrated changes based on the desired outcome.

In other words, let's abandon this absurd Enviro-Calvinism and stop trying to throw Adam and Eve out of the garden. Instead, let's find out how best to tend this garden in order to promote human life for a long, long time.

And let's also keep perspective. We are in the midst of a steady progression toward colder and colder climate (the 22,000-year cycle is only one of the solar radiation cycles that affect us). Quite accidentally, we may have postponed the next ice age.

And I, for one, think that's a good thing. Those who bemoan the dangers of global warming are forgetting the far more cataclysmic effects of ice ages.


Let's get some serious science done on this subject and start trying to calibrate our response. The goal is not to return to some ideal "state of nature" as if we weren't part of this world and ought to be ejected from it. The goal is to find a sustainable balance that balances reasonable costs against attainable benefits.

One obvious question ought to be: Are the costs of reducing global warming worse than the costs of simply letting our coastlines move inland and relocating our coastal activities?

Another obvious question might be: Are human emission-causing activities changing in compensatory ways? As an example: The population explosion has turned out to be a largely self-solving problem (as it always has been, if you regard famine and plague as "solutions), because apparently humans cut down on their reproductive rate when they feel prosperous and secure about the future.

Is it not possible that growing economies pass through heavy-emission cycles and then, as their technology improves, they naturally emit less greenhouse gas? Perhaps, if we simply let human life alone instead of punishing humans for being alive, we'll have a phase of excessive warming followed by a phase of more balanced temperatures.

One thing is certain: We can't afford to adopt drastic "solutions" without taking into account that some global warming might actually be a good thing.

We need better measurements. We need rational analysis. We need to stop regarding humans as "unnatural" and recognize that we, too, are part of the biosphere and are entitled to influence the environment as part of our effort to survive.

Because we're the cleverest of the beasts, we are capable of making more sweeping and devastating changes. But we're also capable of making sweeping and beneficial changes.

There are six billion of us, more or less, on this planet, and right now any large areas of hunger are caused by political rather than environmental problems. The great economic engine that drives the global economy is not a robust system. It can collapse.

Far more humans would die, and far more damage would be done to our climate, from the collapse of that economic engine than from the degree of global warming predicted by rational scientists.

So whatever we do to correct any possible overwarming of the earth (a threshold yet to be rationally defined), fundamental decency, as well as scientific rigor, suggests that we should look first for changes that do not break down that global economy.

The Enviro-Calvinists say, in effect, "The sky is falling, so we must shoot the dog."

Rational science says, Here are the observable events; here are the possible causes; here are changes we might make; here are the possible outcomes of action or inaction. (Rational science also admits it freely when we just don't know enough to make an informed, intelligent decision.)

When we have enough reliable data, let's make our decisions based on informed consensus rather than the religious fervor of Enviro-Calvinist fanatics -- especially since their god is an imaginary "state of nature" that does not include civilized, industrialized, mobile, and reproductively enthusiastic humanity.

Copyright © 2005 by Orson Scott Card.
"It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing." - Howard Roark
Dean Koontz= Always working!
Back to Top
WhiteWolf View Drop Down
Climate Change Denier

Joined: October/03/2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WhiteWolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2007 at 8:35am
Back to Top
WhiteWolf View Drop Down
Climate Change Denier

Joined: October/03/2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WhiteWolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2007 at 3:00pm
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions

COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.

Last year, Bromwich's research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn't increased in the last 50 years. "What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down," he said.

In addition to the new temperature records and earlier precipitation records, Bromwich's team also looked at the behavior of the circumpolar westerlies, the broad system of winds that surround the Antarctic continent.

"The westerlies have intensified over the last four decades of so, increasing in strength by as much as perhaps 10 to 20 percent," he said. "This is a huge amount of ocean north of Antarctica and we're only now understanding just how important the winds are for things like mixing in the Southern Ocean." The ocean mixing both dissipates heat and absorbs carbon dioxide, one of the key greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Some researchers are suggesting that the strengthening of the westerlies may be playing a role in the collapse of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula.

"The peninsula is the most northern point of Antarctica and it sticks out into the westerlies," Bromwich says. "If there is an increase in the westerly winds, it will have a warming impact on that part of the continent, thus helping to break up the ice shelves, he said.

"Farther south, the impact would be modest, or even non-existent."

Bromwich said that the increase in the ozone hole above the central Antarctic continent may also be affecting temperatures on the mainland. "If you have less ozone, there's less absorption of the ultraviolet light and the stratosphere doesn't warm as much."

That would mean that winter-like conditions would remain later in the spring than normal, lowering temperatures.

"In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion," he said. "The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic."

Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.

Contact: David Bromwich (614) 292-6692;


Oh really. Sounds like another Global Warming Honk trying to cover up the fact that contrary evidence does not support the theory. Keep it up, guys. Maybe all your hot air actually will warm the planet, and then you can be right and tell everyone how to live their lives because obviously all of you people know better than the rest of us how to do anything at all.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 71>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

All my sites | Web Wiz Hosting Services | Privacy policy