Do you believe in global warming?

[EasterJoy]

No, I was not meaning to shout at you. Only to emphasize that science is science, and when the data gathered does not support the hypothesis, then it’s time to consider that the hypothesis is wrong, but the “climate scientists” who are all in with global warming cannot and will not do that. Thus, in my estimation, they stopped being scientists because they are trying to shape the data to fit the hypothesis. All of this came about with the aid of computer modeling in the first place - there is no ACTUAL data to support the theory in the first place. It’s all done by algorithm. That’s fun, but it’s not science. Especially not when you falsify what data you include in the first place.

This “climate science” cow patty labeling is ridiculous anyway. What is “climate science?” Is it meteorology? Is it some sort of geology? No, it’s people being turned out of higher education with nothing more than a commitment to an AGENDA. They are not scientists at all, they do not question, they merely accept and kowtow to a politically driven theory (which is wrong).

What is meteorology? Have you not noticed that weather forecasts are a lot better than they used to be? We’ve come a long way from the Old Farmer’s Almanac, let’s just say that.

To say that people who study the weather are “not scientists at all” is a bit over the top, as is the contention “it’s all done by algorithm. That’s fun, but it’s not science.” Are you kidding me? And the shouting again with the ACTUAL DATA rant…anybody can go up on Mt. Hood or to Glacier National Park or anywhere in the West and look through years of old pictures and see that the glaciers are retreating in the West. Retreating glaciers, regardless of why they are retreating, or whether they are retreating anywhere else, means less water: less water for cities, less water for agriculture, less water for fish. Of course this is political! That means money, lifestyle, natural resources…of course it is political!

(What does this scientist you know do, that you’ve gotten the idea that real scientists don’t use algorithms? I’m at a loss to think of a branch of science that *doesn’t *use them!)

 

[TheRealJuliane]

What is meteorology? Have you not noticed that weather forecasts are a lot better than they used to be? We’ve come a long way from the Old Farmer’s Almanac, let’s just say that.

To say that people who study the weather are “not scientists at all” is a bit over the top, as is the contention “it’s all done by algorithm. That’s fun, but it’s not science.” Are you kidding me? And the shouting again with the ACTUAL DATA rant…anybody can go up on Mt. Hood or to Glacier National Park or anywhere in the West and look through years of old pictures and see that the glaciers are retreating in the West. Retreating glaciers, regardless of why they are retreating, or whether they are retreating anywhere else, means less water: less water for cities, less water for agriculture, less water for fish. Of course this is political! That means money, lifestyle, natural resources…of course it is political!

(What does this scientist you know do, that you’ve gotten the idea that real scientists don’t use algorithms? I’m at a loss to think of a branch of science that *doesn’t *use them!)

I didn’t say science doesn’t use algorithms, just that the “climate scientists” who started all this global warming nonsense used computer modeling and left out critical data such as the Medieval Warming Period, which is the opposite of science. You can’t leave out the data that goes against your pet theory and call it science, sorry.

Why so sensitive to caps, anyway?

It’s not “this” scientist, by the way.

 

[EasterJoy]

I didn’t say science doesn’t use algorithms, just that the “climate scientists” who started all this global warming nonsense used computer modeling and left out critical data such as the Medieval Warming Period, which is the opposite of science. You can’t leave out the data that goes against your pet theory and call it science, sorry.

Why so sensitive to caps, anyway?

It’s not “this” scientist, by the way.

I don’t think this “global warming nonsense” was started by the guy who did the computer modeling. I think it was started by hydrologists wondering where in the h, ee, double toothpicks their glaciers and snow packs had gone.

Still, to the point of the thread, people can disagree about this and still consider each other intelligent. All sorts of scientists can think of a colleague, “yeah, so-and-so is brilliant, his work in area Y is wonderful. I don’t get why he’s such a gullible wing nut when it comes to Young X’s hair-brained theories.” Whether or not they can be married to each other, though, that is another question altogether!

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I don’t think this “global warming nonsense” was started by the guy who did the computer modeling. I think it was started by hydrologists wondering where in the h, ee, double toothpicks their glaciers and snow packs had gone.

Still, to the point of the thread, people can disagree about this and still consider each other intelligent. All sorts of scientists can think of a colleague, “yeah, so-and-so is brilliant, his work in area Y is wonderful. I don’t get why he’s such a gullible wing nut when it comes to Young X’s hair-brained theories.” Whether or not they can be married to each other, though, that is another question altogether!

North America was covered in an ice sheet one mile thick … no scientists were worried about where the ice sheet had gone.

Ice ages have come and gone many times.

A lot of rock deposits are referred to as “glacial till” because as the glaciers moved around they deposited rock that got ground into fine / small ball bearing sized particles.

It wasn’t until just recently that one glacier that hung around longer … at Glacier National Park … melted later than the others … that some public relations people got the idea to politicize it.

The whole man-made global warming issue is nothing more than one giant hoax.

And it has cost the taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars in bad economic and energy policy and in alleged studies that resulted in conferences in Cancun.

These hoaxers have bilked the taxpayers for years and for a huge amount of money.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

What is meteorology? Have you not noticed that weather forecasts are a lot better than they used to be? We’ve come a long way from the Old Farmer’s Almanac, let’s just say that.

To say that people who study the weather are “not scientists at all” is a bit over the top, as is the contention “it’s all done by algorithm. That’s fun, but it’s not science.” Are you kidding me? And the shouting again with the ACTUAL DATA rant…anybody can go up on Mt. Hood or to Glacier National Park or anywhere in the West and look through years of old pictures and see that the glaciers are retreating in the West. Retreating glaciers, regardless of why they are retreating, or whether they are retreating anywhere else, means less water: less water for cities, less water for agriculture, less water for fish. Of course this is political! That means money, lifestyle, natural resources…of course it is political!

(What does this scientist you know do, that you’ve gotten the idea that real scientists don’t use algorithms? I’m at a loss to think of a branch of science that *doesn’t *use them!)

If there are floods, then there is water. Floods are periodic, as are droughts … probably every ten years or so [corresponding to the natural solar cycles]. We just need to manage the water better … there are things called “reservoirs” … specially dug to store water for use during droughts. We have floods all the time … during droughts, when the area is dry, that is when you dig the reservoirs … NOT when the area is in flood.

It would be helpful to publish the flood and drought information … just read old newspapers … if you want a good high school science project … read the newspapers and plot the data points on floods and droughts.

ANYWAY, so, I guess the “science is not settled” after all … does this mean that Al Gore has to give his Academy Award back?

reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

The article is filled with little bon mots like this:

**Weak economic growth and the pause in warming is undermining governments’ willingness to make a rapid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels. Almost 200 governments have agreed to work out a plan by the end of 2015 to combat global warming.

“The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought,” said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.**

Did somebody actually get paid to write this “thing”?

“almost 200 countries” … there ARE only 200 countries in the world … and likely no more than about people from six of them really are working on this … because they have egg on their face.

“not quite so simple” … I mean, seriously … and these are supposed to be “scientists”?

“IPCC had to correct a report” … "exaggerated the pace of melt … " … TRACK it back! It was based on a bar-room conversation by some graduate students … really …

 

[lynnvinc]

Whether we think the husband ought to have the pickup, though, I think we all agree: the most important issue is not the pickup. The issue is whether the pickup–whether he has it or does not get to have it or decides not to have it–is going to get between the husband and the wife.

You don’t save the planet by contracting marriages that are doomed to self-destruct…

You are so right. If we don’t have solid marriages and families who can rear kids with solid consciences and compassion, then the planet is surely doomed. Abused people unfortunately tend to get into the cycle of abuse and later abuse others, and would probably also abuse others’ subsistence base as well – healthy air, water, food, supplies – or at least not be concerned enough to “see” and reduce their harm to it.

However, I’m thinking that rejection of climate science and its implications for grave harm to our fellow humans and others of God’s creation may in some cases indicate a hardened heart (see * below).

Now I think a marriage & family can survive when at least one partner has a soft and caring heart, but if both are small minded and mean, concerned mainly about themselves, their egos, their rights to do and believe anything they wish (without much sense of duty and responsibility towards others), then that might lead to a difficult marriage.

So I’m thinking if both accept climate science, and other “impact” science that indicates other harms to people and others, and strive to reduce their harms, that would be beneficial to a marriage – both in terms of being on the same page (compatible), and saving them money, thereby reducing marital strife.

If only one accepts climate science and other “impact science” that indicates harms we’re doing, and the other does not, then the relationship may still work, because that one is more sensitive and willing to do for others, including the spouse, and would probably have some understanding of why the spouse is hard-hearted…such as an abusive childhood, etc., and have more compassion for that spouse.

But I’m thinking if both agree that climate science is a bunch of bunk and the scientists are in some huge conspiracy – AND this is due to both spouses or intimates being hard-hearted and uncaring – this might actually be a bad situation for a healthy marriage and family.

*When I say, hard-hearted, I’m only referring to those who not only reject climate science and its finding that global warming is real and harmful (with grave harms in the pipes and more to come in the future if we persist in our high GHG emissions), but also reject a strategy of “avoiding the false negative” of failing to address real harms – that is, refusing to even consider there is a small chance the climate scientists may be right, and it is best to mitigate it just in case they are right (prudence, precaution).

I’m not referring to those who don’t actually know what the real climate scientists are saying, and have only tapped into climate “fake-science” perpetrated by the fossil-fuel funded denialist industry. They may be good and decent people, soft-hearted and caring, but just unaware of the real science, or have a hard time understanding who is right. For those types, their marriages might be fine, esp if they reduce their energy & resource consumption (thereby their GHGs) in ways that save them money without lowering their living standards, perhaps for other good reasons, and thereby take the financial pressures off their marriage.

As Jesus says, be as shrewd as a serpent and as gentle as a dove.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

A one degree increase in temperature in 100 years is not going to harm anyone. Even if it happens … and now, that appears to be unlikely … based on the actual data, the temperature is NOT increasing.

AGW … man-caused global warming … is a hoax … not happening … the actual scientific data says so.

AND … if we’re actually in a cooling period, then the Earth and its people are in real trouble … crops grow poorly in cold weather.

EVEN WORSE … if we’re actually in a cooling or flat period, then the computer models that we spent so much time and money on … are totally worthless.

Just a bunch of polar bear stories.

 

[EasterJoy]

North America was covered in an ice sheet one mile thick … no scientists were worried about where the ice sheet had gone.

Ice ages have come and gone many times.

Well, yes, cold periods do come and go, but not even the “Little Ice Age” was a lot of fun. Even though it came on slowly, it caused suffering.

If there were to be a rapid change in climate, the impact on agriculture would cause worries that went far beyond science. So no matter who is right, the stakes are very high in both directions. If the correct guesses are made about what the weather will do in the future, about what would be the best solutions for transportation and agriculture and the siting and building of settlements, it would make a big difference.

If there are floods, then there is water. Floods are periodic, as are droughts … probably every ten years or so [corresponding to the natural solar cycles]. We just need to manage the water better … there are things called “reservoirs” … specially dug to store water for use during droughts. …

“If there are floods, then there is water”? Really? That’s like say, “Hey, if we have a Dust Bowl, then we obviously have plenty of dirt! No problem!!”

Honestly, you are being too flippant, and writing as if you don’t understand the problem of water at all. It is a very big deal here in the West, always has been–why would there be “water rights”, if all the necessary water was always there for the asking?–and if it is correct that we have had an unusually wet weather pattern here in the last 150 years, it is only going to get bigger. There are also these things called “aquifers”, and they do not have an endless supply of water in them, either, any more than Texas has an endless supply of oil. It is possible for a previously reliable well to be over-used and pumped dry, and that applies on the grand scale as well as on the small scale.

Or, as the farmer said when his mule died, “Gee, he’s never done that before.” Stupid optimism is not prudent.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Please explain … what is flippant about building structures such as lakes, dams, channels, reservoirs and other water works!!

Absolutely nothing flippant about any of that.

The Missouri River floods from time to time … and that flood water could be / could have been diverted to a series of reservoirs, dams and lakes … The Ohio River floods from time to time; serious proposals were made to store that water, but the engineers were ridiculed and hooted out of town … the proposals died and now they are stuck with the floods.

The upper midwest floods frequently owing to blocked ice melt. It happens so often that the floods are predicable and water storage reservoirs could be designed and built.

Reservoir systems have been hooted down in other states as well. As a result, where there are water shortages, all of a sudden everyone gets angry and upset … but the pattern repeats itself … legitimate proposals are presented and then shouted down in times with plenty of water and then complaints surface during drought periods.

As an example, the Columbia River system “hosts” somewhere around 50 dams. They generate a lot of electricity and they have provisions for salmon to bypass the dams.

Absolutely nothing flippant at all about any of this.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] … was not a true ice age, … extended roughly from about 1350 to about 1850,[6] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and AD 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[7]

There is nothing anyone can do about it … except develop energy sources to keep people warm.

The real Ice Age with glaciers … peaked 22,000 years ago.

Nobody was around on the planet that we are aware of.

The Old Testament only goes back around 4000 years. And before that?

 

[Bballer32]

I do not believe in Global warming, and here’s why.

I live, as you can see, in good ol’ South Dakota. Here in South Dakota we have 4 distinct seasons. Summer, Fall, Winter, Spring. Summer usually begins about the Second week of June. Fall begins about Labor Day weekend. Winter usually starts a week after Thanksgiving. Spring usually starts the 3rd week of March. But guess what???

It’s the middle of April and it is still snowing!!!

Anyone who tells me that global warming exists should be slapped. :banghead::slapfight:

 

[Ridgerunner]

I suppose this is really a four-part question.

1. 
   *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
   *]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
   *]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   
   Thank you in advance.

1. 1. Not sure. There are cycles in the earth’s warming and cooling. I have read that there is no discernible increase in the last ten years. So I’m agnostic on the subject.
   2. If there is global warming, I’m at least inclined to think humans are responsible to the degree that there is a lot of manmade desertification in the world. An interesting person to google is Allen Savory who believes in MMGW and used to attribute it to CO2 emissions, but believes now that it is caused by reversible desertification. Very, very interesting what Savory has to say. He even shows demonstration projects.
   3. It likely means he thinks what others whom he believes think about it.
   4. If she doesn’t, she’s probably conservative in other ways. if she does, she’s probably liberal in other ways. I made my choice of romantic partner years ago, and she was considerably more conservative than i was at the time, and I’m glad of that.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

You are so right. If we don’t have solid marriages and families who can rear kids with solid consciences and compassion, then the planet is surely doomed. Abused people unfortunately tend to get into the cycle of abuse and later abuse others, and would probably also abuse others’ subsistence base as well – healthy air, water, food, supplies – or at least not be concerned enough to “see” and reduce their harm to it.

However, I’m thinking that rejection of climate science and its implications for grave harm to our fellow humans and others of God’s creation may in some cases indicate a hardened heart (see * below).

Now I think a marriage & family can survive when at least one partner has a soft and caring heart, but if both are small minded and mean, concerned mainly about themselves, their egos, their rights to do and believe anything they wish (without much sense of duty and responsibility towards others), then that might lead to a difficult marriage.

So I’m thinking if both accept climate science, and other “impact” science that indicates other harms to people and others, and strive to reduce their harms, that would be beneficial to a marriage – both in terms of being on the same page (compatible), and saving them money, thereby reducing marital strife.

If only one accepts climate science and other “impact science” that indicates harms we’re doing, and the other does not, then the relationship may still work, because that one is more sensitive and willing to do for others, including the spouse, and would probably have some understanding of why the spouse is hard-hearted…such as an abusive childhood, etc., and have more compassion for that spouse.

But I’m thinking if both agree that climate science is a bunch of bunk and the scientists are in some huge conspiracy – AND this is due to both spouses or intimates being hard-hearted and uncaring – this might actually be a bad situation for a healthy marriage and family.

*When I say, hard-hearted, I’m only referring to those who not only reject climate science and its finding that global warming is real and harmful (with grave harms in the pipes and more to come in the future if we persist in our high GHG emissions), but also reject a strategy of “avoiding the false negative” of failing to address real harms – that is, refusing to even consider there is a small chance the climate scientists may be right, and it is best to mitigate it just in case they are right (prudence, precaution).

I’m not referring to those who don’t actually know what the real climate scientists are saying, and have only tapped into climate “fake-science” perpetrated by the fossil-fuel funded denialist industry. They may be good and decent people, soft-hearted and caring, but just unaware of the real science, or have a hard time understanding who is right. For those types, their marriages might be fine, esp if they reduce their energy & resource consumption (thereby their GHGs) in ways that save them money without lowering their living standards, perhaps for other good reasons, and thereby take the financial pressures off their marriage.

As Jesus says, be as shrewd as a serpent and as gentle as a dove.

You are really suggesting that anyone who doesn’t agree with your decision that global warming is real, is either small-minded, hard-hearted, or stupid? Or all of the above? You really are a classic, lynnevinc. Even in the face of the truth, you go on calling those who disagree with you names like “deniers,” imply that they may have been abused, and have hardened hearts. How many times do you have to be told, this is a HOAX and a FRAUD, until you yourself realize you’ve been deceived for a purpose that is not benevolent?

Oh, never mind, you’ll never see it, and it’s pointless to go on arguing. I have better things to do.

 

[styrgwillidar]

You are really suggesting that anyone who doesn’t agree with your decision that global warming is real, is either small-minded, hard-hearted, or stupid? Or all of the above? You really are a classic, lynnevinc. Even in the face of the truth, you go on calling those who disagree with you names like “deniers,” imply that they may have been abused, and have hardened hearts. How many times do you have to be told, this is a HOAX and a FRAUD, until you yourself realize you’ve been deceived for a purpose that is not benevolent?

Oh, never mind, you’ll never see it, and it’s pointless to go on arguing. I have better things to do.

When your ego is invested in your position, it’s hard to change your position regardless of the information.

I do not think the man-made global warming was initiated as a hoax, but a hypothesis that was put forward. However, the models created based on the assumptions in that hypothesis have proven to be wrong. They are not supported by the real world data. Now, does that mean there is no contribution to global warming from human activity? I don’t know, but the models are certainly incomplete in accounting for all of the factors contributing to climate. Both localized and global.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

When your ego is invested in your position, it’s hard to change your position regardless of the information.

I do not think the man-made global warming was initiated as a hoax, but a hypothesis that was put forward. However, the models created based on the assumptions in that hypothesis have proven to be wrong. They are not supported by the real world data. Now, does that mean there is no contribution to global warming from human activity? I don’t know, but the models are certainly incomplete in accounting for all of the factors contributing to climate. Both localized and global.

It’s not that the models have proven to be wrong; they were WRONG from the start! When you leave out big hunks of data that disagree with your theory, it tends to skew your results (Medieval warming period, in this case). Emails have emerged that show the people who did this knew exactly what they had done and how. The links have been posted over and over and over, yet some people (who imply that others are stupid and small-minded) refuse to even look at the disclosures!

 

[Monte_RCMS]

planetark.org/wen/68427

“Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown”

Reuters is the greenest major news service going so this is a big deal.

 

[styrgwillidar]

It’s not that the models have proven to be wrong; they were WRONG from the start! When you leave out big hunks of data that disagree with your theory, it tends to skew your results (Medieval warming period, in this case). Emails have emerged that show the people who did this knew exactly what they had done and how. The links have been posted over and over and over, yet some people (who imply that others are stupid and small-minded) refuse to even look at the disclosures!

I am familiar with the e-mails, the IPCC report etc. but those arose after the hypothesis was put forward.

I do think the initial hypothesis was made in good faith. A simple scientific question worthy of exploration-- can carbon emissions affect the climate. That is, there were some indications that carbon emissions could affect the climate via specific mechanisms. The models were created based on those assumptions. Yes, the models were wrong from the start-- but I don’t believe out of an intention to create a hoax. I think the hoax came into play as the data came in and didn’t support the models. And there were people and organizations with a vested interest in being correct about man-made global warming… Hence, models being adjusted to force an upward trends- even when fed random data. The denial of the Medieval warming period, the inability to replicate the results, the inability to provide the data for others to examine, the selective bias dropping out previously included stations and adding others, discounting urbanization effect, including unverified anecdotal information, the requirement of supposedly legitimate scientists to ‘hide the decline’, the pressure on publications to refuse to print studies with differing opinions etc. etc. etc.

 

[lynnvinc]

You are really suggesting that anyone who doesn’t agree with your decision that global warming is real, is either small-minded, hard-hearted, or stupid? Or all of the above? You really are a classic, lynnevinc. Even in the face of the truth, you go on calling those who disagree with you names like “deniers,” imply that they may have been abused, and have hardened hearts. How many times do you have to be told, this is a HOAX and a FRAUD, until you yourself realize you’ve been deceived for a purpose that is not benevolent?

Oh, never mind, you’ll never see it, and it’s pointless to go on arguing. I have better things to do.

I follow the science very closely so I know global warming is real, is mainly caused by humans this time around, and is projected to have very negative consequences for human life.

I also know science is not absolute, that it can make mistakes, that it progresses over time by displacing wrong ideas with better data and theories.

So it could be the climate scientists are wrong, there is that slight chance, less that 5%. And I do hope they are wrong. It would be wonderful if they are wrong.

However, I follow the dictates of precaution and prudence, which tells me to mitigate climate change, even if I am not 100% certain about it. Even if I were only 15% certain about it I would be mitigating, bec even the slight possibility that my actions are harming and killing people on into the far future is something very abhorrent to me.

Luckily I’ve found over the past 23 years that mitigating climate change has saved us many $1000s, reducing our GHG (and concomitant local pollution) by over 60%, while our living standard actually increased somewhat, and there is a lot more for us to do before we even have to think about “sacrifice” for the sake of the life of the world. Plus JPII, BXVI, and our US Bishops have called for us to mitigate climate change.

So I really don’t understand why some people, esp some Catholics, are so set saying this problem doesn’t exist – and that climate scientists are a bunch of evil liars – when they could be mitigating it (even on the off-chance it could be real), and saving money and reducing other harms. It’s extremely hard for me to understand that.

So I do think some or even many climate change denialists are mean and hard-hearted, but not necessarily all. I don’t know people’s hearts and minds – only God knows – so I am not making a blanket statement about all climate change denialists and skeptics.

I’m sure there are plenty of those who accept CC and even mitigate it who are also mean and hard-hearted – like I am to my hubby sometimes. Why do I always hurt the ones I love

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I am familiar with the e-mails, the IPCC report etc. but those arose after the hypothesis was put forward.

I do think the initial hypothesis was made in good faith. A simple scientific question worthy of exploration-- can carbon emissions affect the climate. That is, there were some indications that carbon emissions could affect the climate via specific mechanisms. The models were created based on those assumptions. Yes, the models were wrong from the start-- but I don’t believe out of an intention to create a hoax. I think the hoax came into play as the data came in and didn’t support the models. And there were people and organizations with a vested interest in being correct about man-made global warming… Hence, models being adjusted to force an upward trends- even when fed random data. The denial of the Medieval warming period, the inability to replicate the results, the inability to provide the data for others to examine, the selective bias dropping out previously included stations and adding others, discounting urbanization effect, including unverified anecdotal information, the requirement of supposedly legitimate scientists to ‘hide the decline’, the pressure on publications to refuse to print studies with differing opinions etc. etc. etc.

You know, you’re right - the word “hoax” is the wrong choice here. A hoax is like a practical joke, and eventually comes to an end, either naturally or with exposure. This is a deception. An intentional, calculated deception, that many otherwise perfectly nice and intelligent people have fallen for. Fraud is also a great descriptor.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

planetark.org/wen/68427

“Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown”

Reuters is the greenest major news service going so this is a big deal.

I wish you the best, Monte. Some people’s heads are made of MDF.

Unsubscribe.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

You are really suggesting that anyone who doesn’t agree with your decision that global warming is real, is either small-minded, hard-hearted, or stupid?

A lot of people do that with many subjects. For the most part, it’s insecurity in their beliefs. And they have reason to be insecure, since they generally do not have the background to understand the issues and get their information only from biased sources. If challenged in a real way, they don’t have the tools to address the issues and have to resort to demeaning others. But that doesn’t bother us 6’+ martial arts types with science degrees.