# Flashback 2004:  Antarctica will soon be the only place to live



## dbeyat45 (Dec 30, 2013)

*Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally*

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
                                   Sunday, 2 May 2004_
Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the  end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the  Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week._​
Fast forward almost ten years:

*
Aurora Australis is forced to abandon bit to rescue stricken Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy from ice                 *​_
Passengers aboard the stricken MV Akademik Shokalskiy have been told  to prepare for the "worst case scenario" and may now have to abandon  ship two weeks into their month-long trip of a lifetime to the  Antarctic.
_​
_Having sailed overnight the Aurora battled its way  through the freezing conditions and had come within 10 nautical miles of  the Russian passenger ship, which has been wedged in a 20 nautical mile  wide ice floe since Christmas Eve._​ 
Sea ice in the Antarctic is currently at record levels for this time of year and has been on the increase since satellites began assessing it in the late 1970s.Somewhere far, far to the South where it is Summer, a group of global warming scientists is trapped in the Antarctic ice.  If you missed the irony of that situation, it is because much of the mainstream media has glossed over that rather inconvenient fact.*

Get you winter woolies ready for the move South ....* 

 :lofl:


----------



## That Guy (Dec 30, 2013)




----------



## Diwundrin (Dec 30, 2013)

Too late!  All the good beachside property has been snapped up by Al Gore and the hinterland is being declared a Polar bear sanctuary by Greenpeace.  They're looking for donations to help with the relocation costs.  They have the ecological impacts sorted. The bears can polish off the penguins until the whale population builds up again and then they can eat them. Japanese will be banned from Antarctica so there'll be no competition for the food source.

The Vatican are making arrangements to move and are currently forming a conclave to decide on a new colour for the 'best dressed' Pope to wear as he'll vanish in white down there.  It's just an interim arrangement until the palm trees get established, then the traditional garb will return.

Sorry, sometimes the World is just too crazy to make even pretending to be  sensible worth the effort.


----------



## Davey Jones (Dec 30, 2013)

Did anyonethink to ask Al Gore his opinion?


----------



## dbeyat45 (Dec 30, 2013)

Davey Jones said:


> Did anyonethink to ask Al Gore his opinion?



Not sure but what I do know is that whenever he is involved with something promoting his "cause", the weather turns nasty.  It's known widely as _The Gore Effect_.  



> 1.  Gore Effect
> 
> word of the day: January 23, 2007
> 
> ...


----------



## That Guy (Dec 31, 2013)

Diwundrin said:


> Too late!  All the good beachside property has been snapped up


----------



## dbeyat45 (Dec 31, 2013)

I'm not sure exactly what is happening with the trapped ship but the sea ice extent graph from your National Snow & Ice Data Centre shows more divergence from the 1981-2010 average ice level.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png


----------



## dbeyat45 (Dec 31, 2013)

Deniers pose for a group picture.   
Ice, what ice?


----------



## Diwundrin (Dec 31, 2013)

Where's the 'irony' cartoon DB??  ... please???  If you don't I will. Cracks me up just thinking about it.   Bwaaahaahaha.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 31, 2013)

Century old photo negatives found in Antarctic explorer's hut...http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/28/world/antarctic-historic-photos/


----------



## dbeyat45 (Dec 31, 2013)

SeaBreeze said:


> Century old photo negatives found in Antarctic explorer's hut...http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/28/world/antarctic-historic-photos/



SB, I always think of Captain Oates whenever I hear stories about the Antarctic.  _Greater love_ .....



> "I am just going outside  and may be some time." With these words, Antarctic explorer Capt  Lawrence Oates set out to meet his death 100 years ago, aged 31, and  entered the history books.
> 
> He was one of five men who died as they tried to return home  from Robert Falcon Scott's ill-fated expedition to the South Pole in  1912.
> 
> Capt Oates is remembered because of his act of self-sacrifice, committed because he believed he was slowing the others down.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17269397


----------



## dbeyat45 (Dec 31, 2013)

Meanwhile, at the opposite end, it is currently very, very cold at the North Pole ....... from Japan's Meteorological Agency:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/html_e/pole30_n.html*

Time series of 30-hPa Temperature over the North Pole*




 

Black and gray lines show recent and climatological normal 30-hPa temperature, respectively.


----------



## dbeyat45 (Jan 1, 2014)

The mainstream media on the job ...


----------



## dbeyat45 (Jan 1, 2014)

It's getting worse in the deep South;  the Chinese icebreaker, which was standing off, is now trapped:

*Antarctic helicopter rescue delayed as second ship trapped in ice     *





*Xue Long sits in Watt Bay, Antarctica.*




> Plans to rescue 52 passengers trapped on the  stricken Russian research ship Akademik Shokalskiy have been thrown into  disarray after the Chinese ice-breaker Xue Long itself became stuck in  pack ice, west of the Mertz Glacier.
> 
> It is the second vessel to become trapped in the region in less than two weeks.
> 
> There were expectations that a helicopter on the Xue Long would today begin ferrying trapped passengers off the Russian ship.


http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/...elayed-as-second-ship-trapped-in-ice/?src=rss


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 2, 2014)




----------



## Warrigal (Jan 2, 2014)

And this is what the Guardian has to say on the subject, in reasonably plain English:



> [h=1]Five basic Antarctic facts for climate change sceptics[/h]Commentators say plight of MV Akademik Shokalskiy shows global warming is exaggerated – the truth is not that simple
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dbeyat45 (Jan 2, 2014)

Warrigal, that is a typical defence of the indefensible by The  Guardian's alarmist journalists.  Why do you think they needed to write  it if "the science" is so secure?

*1. It is large and cold*


It sure is and getting colder. 
*2. It is not the same as the Arctic*


Surely nobody with eyes, ears and a brain thinks otherwise. 
*3. Climate change is having varying impacts*


Is it?  Hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, droughts, floods show no trends.  
What impact is climate change having then, apart from the *partial* melt in the North? 
*4. The ship did not get “frozen in”*


I can't recall but did someone say it was?  All I have read talks about wind-blown floes. 
*5. Research takes time*


Yes.  And money and keeps people employed doing more research.  Every paper you read says "more needs to be done" or WTTE. 

Every  weather event is now seen as proof of global warming.  Mine is a losing  battle but I'm not about to give up.  

Show me any evidence that carbon  dioxide is a driver of climate and I will reconsider.  The IPCC is not  so sure any more.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 2, 2014)

> Warrigal, that is a typical defence of the indefensible by The  Guardian's alarmist journalists.  Why do you think they needed to write  it if "the science" is so secure?



Probably to counter nonsense written in the Murdoch press. In particular this sort of thing:



> But to some climate change contrarians, repeated attempts to free the vessel from the ice are proof that the theory of climate change is flawed or, at best, exaggerated. After all, a warming planet has no ice at all, right?
> 
> In Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, Roger Franklin dispensed with analysis of ice extent, the cyrosphere and the like to get to the heart of the matter – expedition leader Chris Turney is a “warmist” whose understanding of Antarctica amounts to little more than it gets “really, really cold”.
> 
> ...


Check the links for more.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 2, 2014)

I'll be there DB  .. I've been pushing the same barrow ever since this 'big con' started all those years ago and I won't let it go until the Al Gores of the world are in jail with the other frauds or his beach house sinks beneath those rising ocean levels.

For those who came in late my argument, and obsession, is with the doomboosters who are reaping obscene amounts of money by tarting up flimsy figures with exaggeration and plain lies to present it as _"the science."_  None may doubt because _"the science"_ is the new gospel! Those who don't kneel before, or even question,  _"the science"_ are immediately labelled, gasp, Deniers! (Read heretics.)  They're/we're not 'deniers' were skeptics of conmen, what exactly is wrong with that?

You only have to look at the billions skimmed from gullible governments investing in shonky 'Green Technology' to see there's a buck in it. 
And where there's a buck there's an evangelist selling the new religion.    I'm not against the *real* science, just those who are using it to con money and power from the marks.

I stand by the right to hoot, point, jump about, and holler with laughter every time one of these shonky shamans' prophesies of doom are proven wrong.   Maybe not long term wrong, but then they aren't touting their spiel as long term are they?  They've been threatening imminent disaster to get everyone's attention.  So immediate blowing to hell of their theories is equally acceptable by all the rules of fairness.

One clown climevangelist louder than most in OZ got himself enthroned on a handsomely padded salary at the right hand of the PM as Climogod's voice on Earth.  
He proclaimed that the climate modelling and figures proved beyond all doubt that the drought current at the time would prove to be the end of us all and that Adelaide and Brisbane would soon be ghost towns as not enough water would be available for the population.  
The dams would dry up and it would never rain again hard enough to refill them.  So there!  Be afraid!  
 And lo many became afraid and voted Green!  And a great woe was upon the land.

The next year Brisbane had the biggest flood it had seen in decades because ....  wait for it.... the Dam overflowed!  Oh and Adelaide is still fully populated.

Now it's my contention that if they want to make stupid proclamations and prophecies to hoodwink the gullible then they must expect derision when their smoke and mirrors are seen through.  Right Warri?   Reap as ye sow!  We've been force fed their bullsh*t long enough, now they can swallow some of ours.

So sure, the climate is changing.  It has always been changing. It always will change.  Sometimes it changed very slowly and sometimes it has been found by the *real* science to have changed very fast.  Coal fired power stations didn't cause it a million years ago, nor did air conditioners or fridges.  Nor did CO2.  Taxed or not.  Maybe it was all the methane from dinosaur farts?

Whole bloody continents float about and change.  Antarctica was a tropical paradise of palms and dinosaurs. They have the fossils to prove it. It floated South and got cold.  The North Pole is an iceblock in a very big bowl of water and will melt or grow as it always has, according to weather patterns (not necessarily climate,) sunspot activity,  and ocean current variations.  

What exactly is 'normal' for Arctic ice?  Wasn't it 'normal' when it stretched solid to form a land bridge between Asia and N.America??  What ever happened to that? (Did somebody build a factory?)   Is that the 'normal' they want it to go back to?  Or only the 'normal' of a century ago which is the blink of an eye in geological terms.  _'The science'_ is only pushing short term figures because long term ones don't suit their agenda. They're not scary enough to keep the money rolling in.


So there. 



...and because this got lost on the previous page I'll repost it because to a climatecon skeptic like me, and DB, it's an absolute gem!


----------



## That Guy (Jan 2, 2014)




----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 2, 2014)

Nailed it TG.  Bwaaahahaha.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 2, 2014)

Is this part of the con?



> *2013 confirmed as Australia's hottest year on record*
> 
> National     Climate Change     Weather
> DateJanuary 3, 2014 - 9:38AM
> ...


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 2, 2014)

> The Bureau of Meteorology on Friday confirmed  that last year was the hottest nationwide in more than* a century of  standardised records,* with mean temperatures 1.2 degrees above the * 1961-90 average.*



Why use the 1961=90 average??  Why not the century average?  Does the 33 year Solar 'weather' cycle have some coincidental input into choosing a 30 year slice of a century of records to set an average?  Were those years warmer than the rest or cooler?  

Also coincidentally and this isn't researched, it's from memory, the 60's was the decade when the heatwaves and cyclones I remember from my youth started to tail off.  100+f in the shade was normal for Christmas in the 50s but it hasn't been since, now it may be returning.  Cyclones we expected 3 or 4 times a season also gradually dropped in number and ferocity from the early 60s on.  By choosing those decades they're giving themselves a nice low benchmark for comparisons.  Just wonderin,' cynically and suspiciously.

 Another point to ponder.  Were those weather gadgets anywhere approaching close to as accurate as the equipment of today?  They couldn't have been electronic wizzardry as the reports states "nationwide" and we didn't have any power in the outback then to run them.  

So, the results from mechanical gadgets registering temperatures a century ago being compared to the  nano fraction accuracy of modern, electronic, digital  equipment.  Gee, that sounds legit.

I'm sure those stoic souls who trekked through the dunes and took those measurements out in the Simpson Desert 100 years ago wrote down the results in their little notebooks to .01 of one degree.  Or would they simply scribbled 41f.?  Or whatever it was on the one day of the year they were actually there to write anything down?  But wait...  were they there at all?

Was a 'nationwide' average even possible back then?  Because those devices weren't really out in the Simpson Desert as they may be today.

They were in the scattered towns which were in the main built in the most survivable parts of the landscape.  
In places like Marble Bar  50c+ temps were expected.  And like Coober Pedy where the only way to stay alive back in the day was to live underground where most still do. But they can hardly be taken as a 'national average,'  they were just hottest places that had thermometers.  They don't have the figures from that long ago for everywhere else, and no doubt there are even hotter places where nobody lived or noted temperature records at all.  

How long is it since you heard Marble Bar being touted as hottest place in OZ?  A long time, because it isn't.  They just didn't have records from the hotter ones a century ago.

Always been hot out there, usually, depending on the cycle.  There just wasn't the equipment to record it as accurately.
Quoting decimal points of one degree as a 'record' is just plain ludicrous given the data-base.

Back in 1800s there was a thriving town and vast cattle properties around Gawler, it was in a cool cycle and the landscape was grand then,  but the cycle changed and now what's left of Gawler sits among the sand dunes.  
The whole of Centralia was lush at one time, thousands of years ago, and it's gradually gotten hotter and drier. Who was running the factories and coal fired power stations that dried Lake Mungo up 20,000 years ago???  Didn't taxing their emissions work or something?

But:... the point is... it didn't get that way overnight as we are being told now!  It's not something that we caused last week because we forgot to switch the shed light off!  It's just an alarmist guilt trip to get public compliance for new tax impositions, and grants funding for the perpetrators. 

Climate is a long slow process that is always going on and if it didn't the planet would stagnate.  Running headlines screaming 'we're all gonna die' doesn't do a damned thing I can see to change anything except public perceptions.  

But why do they want our perceptions changed so desperately?  What can 'they' do about solar cycles and planetary climate changes?  Tax it??  Gimme a break!  If they want to stop CO2 production then ban it!  If they, as some posit, just really want to reduce pollution then ban that too.  Shut all the factories down, let humanity sit chanting ommmm while they starve and wait patiently to see if that worked.

What the hell benefit is there in alarming the population about something they can do nothing about? 
 Oh, of course. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It helps with Greenpeace donations, it sells newspapers, it gets public approval for green technology carpetbaggers, and fatter grants to climate modellers.  Oh well that's okay then.







No Warri, I'm not fighting a facts 'n figures war with you, I'll leave that to DB, not just because f.&fss are unreliable depending on where they're published and how they're 'spun,'  but mainly  because it just bores everyone and enlightens no none.  I'm having fun doing the 'guerilla' thing to the game being played behind the scenes of the facts and figures. 
 Like everything, there's always more than meets the eye going on.  If you want to defend "the science" then go for your life
but keep in mind that we're not arguing over exactly the same thing.  

*The 'con' is not that the climate is changing.*  The 'con' is that it's being used, it's consequences exaggerated, it's time frame compressed for instant gratification expectations, and it's figures 'modelled'  to hoodwink us into believing that 'they' can do something about it if we all just toe the line behind them and follow their instructions to fill their pockets in the blind faith that only they understand the word of _"the science"_ and can make the right sacrifices to appease the wrathful Climogods.  

Just like other 'religions' they have the out that if they fail then that's not their fault, nooooo.  Those damned 'climate skeptic' heretics caused it!  Let's burn 'em!

They're at it already on the radio, some outraged Greeny is blaming Tony Abbott for the latest 'record temps.'  because his sacrifice ritual policy isn't as good as their sacrifice ritual policy was. Seeing neither was implemented to any extent I wonder how she can tell??
Nothing political about all this 'con' at all is there???



Still, they have it easier here, they're battling a bit harder convincing N.Americans that they're in imminent danger of frying in their beds.


----------



## dbeyat45 (Jan 3, 2014)

Warrigal said:


> Is this part of the con?


Yes: [h=1]Australian temperature records shoddy, inaccurate, unreliable. Surprise!
[/h]http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/au...ecords-shoddy-inaccurate-unreliable-surprise/

*Australia’s record hottest 12 month period? Not so say the Satellites*

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/au...month-period-junk-science-say-the-satellites/


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 3, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> Why use the 1961=90 average??  Why not the century average?  Does the 33 year Solar 'weather' cycle have some coincidental input into choosing a 30 year slice of a century of records to set an average?  Were those years warmer than the rest or cooler?
> 
> Also coincidentally and this isn't researched, it's from memory, the 60's was the decade when the heatwaves and cyclones I remember from my youth started to tail off.  100+f in the shade was normal for Christmas in the 50s but it hasn't been since, now it may be returning.  Cyclones we expected 3 or 4 times a season also gradually dropped in number and ferocity from the early 60s on.  By choosing those decades they're giving themselves a nice low benchmark for comparisons.  Just wonderin,' cynically and suspiciously.



Why use a 30 year average, starting from 1961? I have no idea but I'll wager London to a brick on that the reason is not that the BOM wants to con you.

I have sourced another graph from my link that shows that the 60s in Australia were not cooler than the decades that preceded them. It shows that the decades 1960 - 1990 were on average slightly hotter than 1911 - 1940 and 1981 - 2010 were hotter still.






> Another point to ponder.  Were those weather gadgets anywhere approaching close to as accurate as the equipment of today?  They couldn't have been electronic wizzardry as the reports states "nationwide" and we didn't have any power in the outback then to run them.
> 
> So, the results from mechanical gadgets registering temperatures a century ago being compared to the  nano fraction accuracy of modern, electronic, digital  equipment.  Gee, that sounds legit.



1910 in Australia was not the scientific dark ages. The country, including the outback probably had more people in it than today. One public servant i.e. the postmaster/mistress, station master, bush nursing matron or assay office manager, was perfectly able to use a mercury thermometer, a wet and dry thermometer, a rain gauge and an aneroid barometer with minimal training. These instruments did not need batteries and had no moving parts to speak of and as such were perfectly capable of producing precise and consistent readings for decades.



> I'm sure those stoic souls who trekked through the dunes and took those measurements out in the Simpson Desert 100 years ago wrote down the results in their little notebooks to .01 of one degree.  Or would they simply scribbled 41f.?  Or whatever it was on the one day of the year they were actually there to write anything down?  But wait...  were they there at all?



Get real, readings would only have been taken where there was some kind of permanent population, however small, such as a telegraph relay station, or a homestead.



> Was a 'nationwide' average even possible back then?  Because those devices weren't really out in the Simpson Desert as they may be today.



The Overland Telegraph was completed in 1872 and it traversed the centre of the country from Port Augusta to Darwin and covered a lot of desert country. There were relay stations all along the line. In any case, the reasons why averages and medians are used is because the outliers are less likely to skew the overall picture. It doesn't really matter whether each sample has exactly the same number of readings provided the sample is big enough and representative enough of the overall data set. So, if today we have more stations, or automated systems, we can still look at past results and see significant trends in the data.




> Back in 1800s there was a thriving town and vast cattle properties around Gawler, it was in a cool cycle and the landscape was grand then,  but the cycle changed and now what's left of Gawler sits among the sand dunes.


You do know that sand dunes travel, according to the prevailing winds?



> The whole of Centralia was lush at one time, thousands of years ago, and it's gradually gotten hotter and drier. Who was running the factories and coal fired power stations that dried Lake Mungo up 20,000 years ago???  Didn't taxing their emissions work or something?
> 
> But:... the point is... it didn't get that way overnight as we are being told now!  It's not something that we caused last week because we forgot to switch the shed light off!  It's just an alarmist guilt trip to get public compliance for new tax impositions, and grants funding for the perpetrators.
> 
> Climate is a long slow process that is always going on and if it didn't the planet would stagnate.  Running headlines screaming 'we're all gonna die' doesn't do a damned thing I can see to change anything except public perceptions.


Agreed. Natural climate change is generally a slow process although some processes are more immediate such as the failure of Summer after big volcanic eruptions or big meteor strikes. Localised effects caused by soil erosion are slower but still visible within human time scales. You don't need sophisticated techniques to observe and measure the retreat of glaciers. It can be seen by comparing photographs over the past hundred years.



> But why do they want our perceptions changed so desperately?  What can 'they' do about solar cycles and planetary climate changes?



Nothing. We don't control the sun, or the tilt of the earth's axis, nor the behaviour of volcanoes



> God grant me the serenity
> to accept the things I cannot change;
> courage to change the things I can;
> and wisdom to know the difference.



but we do have choices we can make with respect of our sources of energy and how greedily we use up non renewable resources of all kinds. Economic and lifestyle choices.



> If they want to stop CO2 production then ban it!  If they, as some posit, just really want to reduce pollution then ban that too.  Shut all the factories down, let humanity sit chanting ommmm while they starve and wait patiently to see if that worked.



Now you are just being silly. It's not about banning everything. It is about finding the right balance. This will require trial, error and adjustment on a global scale. We have to play our part, so does the rest of the world. As the old proverb goes:


> Every little bit helps, said the old woman as she peed in the sea





> What the hell benefit is there in alarming the population about something they can do nothing about?
> Oh, of course.
> 
> 
> ...


What is the benefit of doing nothing?



> No Warri, I'm not fighting a facts 'n figures war with you, I'll leave that to DB, not just because f.&fss are unreliable depending on where they're published and how they're 'spun,'  but mainly  because it just bores everyone and enlightens no none.  I'm having fun doing the 'guerilla' thing to the game being played behind the scenes of the facts and figures.   Like everything, there's always more than meets the eye going on.  If you want to defend "the science" then go for your life but keep in mind that we're not arguing over exactly the same thing.


Correct. Mostly the argument is about political positions.

*



			The 'con' is not that the climate is changing.
		
Click to expand...

*


> The 'con' is that it's being used, it's consequences exaggerated, it's time frame compressed for instant gratification expectations, and it's figures 'modelled'  to hoodwink us into believing that 'they' can do something about it if we all just toe the line behind them and follow their instructions to fill their pockets in the blind faith that only they understand the word of _"the science"_ and can make the right sacrifices to appease the wrathful Climogods.
> 
> Just like other 'religions' they have the out that if they fail then that's not their fault, nooooo.  Those damned 'climate skeptic' heretics caused it!  Let's burn 'em!
> 
> ...


I just said that, didn't I?



> Still, they have it easier here, they're battling a bit harder convincing N.Americans that they're in imminent danger of frying in their beds.


Paradoxically, warmer oceans tend to produce more evaporation and more precipitation. Precipitation can be in the form of snow and hail as well rain. America is not as flat as Australia. The consequences of global warming will look different on each continent. For America perhaps more tornadoes and more Hurricane Sandys as well as more blizzards. For us, maybe more intense El Ninos and La Ninas and more frequent and more extensive bushfires and longer droughts.

God grant us the wisdom to decide whether we can and should act, or not. And the courage to do what we must.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 3, 2014)

> God grant us the wisdom to decide whether we can and should act, or not. And the courage to do what we must.


(Thanks for playin' Warri)


Where we diverge is on the 'action'.  I'm not sure what you feel you 'must' do, but I fail to see how juggling carbon trading prices is going to do a single solitary thing in the real world.  The 'action' is all happening in the financial world.   Putting a price on carbon (do they mean CO2?) just turns it into the equivalent of poker chips, it doesn't reduce the overall output by more than spit's worth.  What really p*sses me off about the carbon tax is the 10% skim paid to the dealer. The UN!  We're told we're paying more on everything to stop the climate changing but that 10 percent doesn't go into 'greener' infrastructure', or even 'recompensing' the poor for the tax they shouldn't have had to pay in the first place is it?  It goes into the travelling cocktail party funds of the UN!  That is stopping climate change exactly how again?  Every time you pour figures over me I lose your point of what 'taking action' alludes to.

I know my way of wording  my arguments border silly, the whole thing is silly, the way it's being reported is silly, and being serious about it merely gives the farce they've turned it into a gravitas it doesn't deserve.  

Sometimes a spoof is more enlightening in revealing the kernel of truth than a serious lecture if you take my meaning.  That's why cartoons are so successful. 
 We need to see the silliness to be able to appreciate the things about it that really should be taken care of instead twittering about the poor drowning polar bears on gadgets which were manufactured by causing the very emissions they blame for melting the polar bears' ice in the first place.  How silly do you wanna get?

As silly as expecting the Greenies and teenage twittering planet savers to give up their smartphones, air-cons, TVs, fridges, cars to reduce the emissions of making them?  Or is it just a handful of industrial magnates who are supposed to carry the blame for it all??

That's presuming of course that what you believe, and I'm agnostic at best about, is true, that climate warming is caused by humans at all.

You may accept there is proof enough for this particular change but I want to hear what caused all the others over the last few billion years before I draw a conclusion.



> Paradoxically


.

Yes. Now there's a word to conjure with.  There seems to be a lot of that involved in _"the science."_


----------



## dbeyat45 (Jan 3, 2014)

> For America perhaps more tornadoes and more Hurricane Sandys as well as more blizzards.



Big "perhaps" there Warrigal wrt hurricanes and tornadoes .... "_the vast majority of evidence points to the fact that the global warming scam has no basis in science_."  Here's some cherry picking for you to check ....


*No Hurricanes And The Fewest Tornadoes On Record*

                                                                                              Posted on September 10, 2013                            by stevengoddard 
                                               There have been no hurricanes in the Atlantic this year, and  the US has had the fewest tornadoes on record – less than half of  normal.


Storm Prediction Center WCM Page​Forest fires and heatwaves have also been near historic lows in 2013,  despite the endless lies being spewed by various government officials –  from Obama on down.


National Interagency Fire Center



 Index of /pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/​The vast majority of evidence points to the fact that the global warming scam has no basis in science.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 3, 2014)

> > Paradoxically
> 
> 
> Yes. Now there's a word to conjure with.  There seems to be a lot of that involved in _"the science."_



Perhaps I should have used the word 'counter-intuitively". A lot of science is counter intuitive.


----------

