T1B

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 11:47 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:No, pops, I'm kicking your tired asses all over the board. You can't put up anything but some limp-dick FOX bullshit. Meanwhile I've exposed the actaul shill process of Koch funding. Check..and mate in two..

Wait... so you have discussed exactly ZERO science, and have launched nothing but ad hominem attacks, and this leads you to declare yourself some sort of victor?

Well, for your coup de grace, maybe you can explain where the heat went in the last 18 years?

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:20 am**

Dinsdale wrote:

Jeebus fuggin Christo, you people Just. Can't. Help. It.

I get it, you don't understand what those graphs are....it's okay, this science stuff is pretty difficult for a lot of people.....

Next question -- why are the polar icecaps growing at such an alarming rate, even with an increase in CO2?

they're not growing, they're shrinking......now understand that the depth of the ice cap is a fairly significant factor in the equation.....what is the depth of the ice cap compared to what it was 20 years ago?

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:25 am**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

A whole 120 million dollars!

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:33 am**

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... E-now.html

So it is thicker and covers more area but to the global warming crowd that somehow equals shrinking.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:36 am**

Felix wrote:they're not growing, they're shrinking

Oh, I forgot I was dealing with a Cultist -- when facts don't support your desired outcome, resort to flat-out lies.

Is your fucking search engine of choice broken? Do you eschew all news, or just that that doesn't support your religion.

And I'll try it again:

WHERE DID THE HEAT GO FOR THE LAST 18 YEARS?

Maybe if I type in all caps, you won't sidestep the fundamental question. Even manipulating the temp data(FACT) couldn't support the failed "theory."

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:45 am**

Left Seater wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... E-now.html

So it is thicker and covers more area but to the global warming crowd that somehow equals shrinking.

His next post will play the stupid little Cult game they play -- he'll try to point out the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet is rapidly melting, as they're wont to do to sell their religion to others (it truly is a religion at this point)...

and they are correct on this one, actually.

Because it has a fucking volcano erupting underneath it... yet they'll ignore science a 3rd grader can grasp, and still use it as one of their "reverse-miracles" to further reinforce their faith.

I mean, what other explanation is there for people to become True Believers in "scientists" that have been wrong... wait for it...

100% of the time.

Think about that for a second -- the IPCC, CRU, NASA, NOAA, and the entire cult haven't ever been right about anything substantial... not once. Obviously not about science to the True Believers at this point, but about being some weird martyr for some cause... "I'M SAVING THE PLANET!!!!"

Man, can't you just go out and start chanting "hands up, don't shoot" or something?

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:49 am**

Felix wrote:they're not growing, they're shrinking

that's what your wife said.

badda bing...

shoot me, I'm not apologizing and I'll be here all night.

wait, you're the FFL treasurer and have my money... please forgive me!

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:58 am**

War Wagon wrote:
Felix wrote:they're not growing, they're shrinking
that's what your wife said.

badda bing...

shoot me, I'm not apologizing and I'll be here all night.

wait, you're the FFL treasurer and have my money... please forgive me!

I recommend a cup of coffee, some light stretching then step out on the back porch for a breath of fresh air, shake yourself and give it another go.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 1:03 am**

Or a Bud Light... or whatever You People drink.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 1:07 am**

Dinsdale wrote:
Left Seater wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... E-now.html

So it is thicker and covers more area but to the global warming crowd that somehow equals shrinking.

His next post will play the stupid little Cult game they play -- he'll try to point out the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet is rapidly melting, as they're wont to do to sell their religion to others (it truly is a religion at this point)...

and they are correct on this one, actually.

Because it has a fucking volcano erupting underneath it... yet they'll ignore science a 3rd grader can grasp, and still use it as one of their "reverse-miracles" to further reinforce their faith.

I mean, what other explanation is there for people to become True Believers in "scientists" that have been wrong... wait for it...

100% of the time.

Think about that for a second -- the IPCC, CRU, NASA, NOAA, and the entire cult haven't ever been right about anything substantial... not once. Obviously not about science to the True Believers at this point, but about being some weird martyr for some cause... "I'M SAVING THE PLANET!!!!"

Man, can't you just go out and start chanting "hands up, don't shoot" or something?

I see you're inured like a good Christer against "that which they'll bring against you." Nice. So, you're saying a giant underworld volcano is causing the alarming antarctic depletion? Interesting. But...you're still stuck with the fact that all of your so-called experts, credentialed or not, are all paid shills. Or...what is the supposed benevolent motive of the kochs spending hundreds of millions of dollars in this shameless propaganda? Why are they spending so much? And what about the fact that guys like Inhofe are certainly insane and utterly obtuse on the subject of the environment?

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 1:24 am**

Yawn.

I'll make another request for science, rather than ad hominem.

You're making it quite clear you haven't considered any science, merely politics... like a good little lapdog.

Where did 18 years' worth of heat go?

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 2:28 am**

Since you know so much about science, you already know all about the ocean currents and how they react to huge amounts of fresh water being added to them, so it's surprising that you would ask such a question.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 5:23 am**

Dinsdale wrote:
molly wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:And..that's the fake tits chick?
I don't have fake tits yet. That's in May. They look great in a bra though.

Hmmm... should I put money in my kid's college fund, or get some fake tits which will look as good as they do on every other chick on the wrong side of 40? Hmmmmm, let me think on this.

Parent of the fucking year.

Ummmmm. Quick to judge eh? Mines reconstruction not vanity.

Also, my son has a fat college fund. Suck it.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:44 pm**

I can't remember how I ascertained said knowledge. It was either a family discussion (which includes 3phd chemist's and one of the highest rated nano chemists in the country, who only has a masters

:doh: :wink:) or maybe it was NOVA. No wait, it might have been Bill Nye, he's a science guy. Anyways it was very interesting. Something about the heat being stored in the ocean when fresh water is added. And the kicker was, if I remember it right, was the heat was at depths we don't normal monitor or can't monitor. Fascinating stuff. Dims will be along to fill in any holes you might have about the science, seeing as I provided zero. I'm not sure I buy it, but a great scientific mind like dims will at least be able to explain it better even if he doesn't buy it.

And I will see if I can find a paper on the net about it or a family member that can fill in the dets for ya. Like I said fascinating stuff.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 8:34 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:And I will see if I can find a paper on the net about it

And I'll laugh.

Funny how some very basic laws of physics get thrown out the window when people have a buck to make.

And NASA at least claims they can measure deep ocean temps... and they haven't changed.

But the "it's in the oceans" is some funny shit, and if you can't figure out why, you're a fucking idiot.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 8:45 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
And NASA at least claims they can measure deep ocean temps... and they haven't changed.

From this thread...

Dinsdale wrote:
Think about that for a second -- the IPCC, CRU, NASA, NOAA, and the entire cult haven't ever been right about anything substantial... not once.

:doh:
Brilliant science and logic there dims.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 9:08 pm**

Gotta love the Ocean currents these fukks pull out of their ass when something happens that doesn't follow their cute little models. They will use this to explain Greenland being green many hundreds of years before man started dumping CO2 into the air.

Face it, doucebags. There is climate change. Always has been. We are moer or less just along for the ride. And when that ride gets too bumpy, well, I guess we can climb aboard the space ark.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 9:27 pm**

I told you I don't know if I buy it so I'm sure you're not talking to me, but if you could explain why it's stupid that water retains heat I would love to hear it.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 9:55 pm**

smackaholic wrote:Gotta love the Ocean currents these fukks pull out of their ass when something happens that doesn't follow their cute little models. They will use this to explain Greenland being green many hundreds of years before man started dumping CO2 into the air.

Face it, doucebags. There is climate change. Always has been. We are moer or less just along for the ride. And when that ride gets too bumpy, well, I guess we can climb aboard the space ark.

What's up smackie, did you run out of Skoal again? I mean you sound like fucking hillbilly having a hungover hissy fit. Look, while the paid shills who are the ONLY deniers of Climate Change have been listed..

(smackie , wake up and read this)

The Guardian reported that after the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees was former head of Exxon Lee Raymond, sent letters that The Guardian said "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration. Despite her initial conviction that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered," Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, "I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". In 2006, the Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."

And the corporate whores who are similarly funding denial efforts..
http://forecastthefacts.org/disruptdenial/

the actual scientific evidence is also at hand..

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Now what's not clear is just what is your motivation in parroting the well-funded denial propaganda. Why do you support the Koch brothers and Exxon? Are you some Creationist loon like Inhofe? What's your excuse for selling out whatever credibility you might have or attain?

And in case you're actually interested in who's been supplying your rote denial bullet points, etc..
http://rationallythinkingoutloud.com/th ... i-know-of/

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:18 pm**

smackaholic wrote:Gotta love the Ocean currents these fukks pull out of their ass when something happens that doesn't follow their cute little models.

They are actually trying to convince people that the ocean has been warming without the atmosphere above it warming... yeah, that's really, actually what they're trying to sell.

Funny shit.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:18 pm**

smackaholic wrote:Gotta love the Ocean currents these fukks pull out of their ass when something happens that doesn't follow their cute little models.

They are actually trying to convince people that the ocean has been warming without the atmosphere above it warming... yeah, that's really, actually what they're trying to sell.

Funny shit.

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 12:34 am**

Oct. 6, 2014: The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."

Deep sea creatures, like anemones at a hydrothermal vent, are not yet feeling the heat from global climate change. Although the top half of the ocean continues to warm, the bottom half has not increased measurably in temperature in the last decade.

In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.

Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the "missing" heat. One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim. This latest study is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean. Scientists have been taking the temperature of the top half of the ocean directly since 2005, using a network of 3,000 floating temperature probes called the Argo array.

"The deep parts of the ocean are harder to measure," said JPL's William Llovel, lead author of the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. "The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is -- not much."

The study took advantage of the fact that water expands as it gets warmer. The sea level is rising because of this expansion and the water added by glacier and ice sheet melt.

While the upper part of the world’s oceans continue to absorb heat from global warming, ocean depths have not warmed measurably in the last decade.

To arrive at their conclusion, the JPL scientists did a straightforward subtraction calculation, using data for 2005-2013 from the Argo buoys, NASA's Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites, and the agency’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites. From the total amount of sea level rise, they subtracted the amount of rise from the expansion in the upper ocean, and the amount of rise that came from added meltwater. The remainder represented the amount of sea level rise caused by warming in the deep ocean.

The remainder was essentially zero. Deep ocean warming contributed virtually nothing to sea level rise during this period.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... oct_abyss/

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 12:49 am**

Dinsdale wrote:
smackaholic wrote:Gotta love the Ocean currents these fukks pull out of their ass when something happens that doesn't follow their cute little models.

They are actually trying to convince people that the ocean has been warming without the atmosphere above it warming... yeah, that's really, actually what they're trying to sell.

Funny shit.

What, do you listen to the Savage Nation for this kind of simplistic assurances of a "cult" of lying scientists?

The effects of Climate Change are legion. Here's a very crucial one..
http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/acidificatio ... hefilm.asp

Now we've seen you try to poo-poo the issue of ocean acidification, but in fact you offered nothing whatsoever, simply a .."that's not true" with nothing to support your childish yapping.

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 4:16 am**

Dinsdale wrote: They are actually trying to convince people that the ocean has been warming without the atmosphere above it warming... yeah, that's really, actually what they're trying to sell.

Funny shit.

Even the daily mail thinks you are full of shit. The thread is why no warming (of air temp) in 18 yrs.
Try and stay focused you syphilitic weasel.

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 3:54 pm**

Left Seater wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... E-now.html

So it is thicker and covers more area but to the global warming crowd that somehow equals shrinking.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ented-rate

http://www.businessinsider.com/arctic-s ... ing-2014-9

these two articles pretty much debunk the dailymail claim....the second article specifically references the story you produced.....

Dinsdale wrote:
Oh, I forgot I was dealing with a Cultist

like i've said countless times, I have no skin in this game....I'll be dead and buried long before climate change starts to effect more and more of the earths ecological systems.....I don't make money from climate science, and simply read scienfic literature produced by climatologists.....you on the other hand are the one that insists on calling me names, whipping up "research" produced by non-qualifed people that has never undergone peer review......you rely on information produced by people that don't understand the research their hell bent on disproving.....certainly not a cultist, I'm simply a concerned citizen that would actually like to have a world in which my grandchildrens grandchildren can continue to inhabit.....you on the other hand, well I don't know what it is you're out to "prove"....

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:00 pm**

88 wrote:What you claim to care about is the habitat of future generations. Then your primary efforts should be to discourage population growth, which is out of fucking control in the third world. At the current growth rate, we will never be able to feed them, even if your peer reviewed chicken-littles get all of our money and then claim that their remedies are holding climate change to some changing level they deem acceptable from year to year.

anything having to do with remediation of climate change, population growth, etc has to be accomplished on a global scale, otherwise we're just pissing in the wind....unfortunately, most third world countries are struggling to find something to eat and couldn't care less about the earths climate, so there is really nothing we (the US) can accomplish without the cooperation of other large industrialized nations such as China and India.....so I'm relatively confident that nothing will be done and eventually more and more areas of this planet will become uninhabitable....

Human beings are capable of living in a wide range of habitats. Inuits live in cold habitats, and Bedouins live in hot habitats. And most live in between. A few degrees in any direction will not make the planet inhabitable for your future generations. More mouths to feed will make it difficult, and pit your generations at risk of war, famine and disease.

roughly 15% of this planet is habitable some of the time....yes, there are peoples that have adapted to living in extreme climates.....there are middle eastern people that live in the Sahara desert, but do you actually think the Sahara could support large groups of people? the answer in short is no.....could large groups of people inhabit areas of the Yukon in Canada? maybe, but it wouldn't be long before the food supply would be gone, so in effect I would say that no, large groups of people could not adapt to living in the extreme cold.....so in order to support larger populations, countries will continue to eliminate things like rain forests which in turn is going to have a profoundly negative effect on the earth.....

I am an atheist. But there is some virtue in the notion that we should accept things we cannot change, like the global climate, the courage to change the things we can, like rampant population growth, and the wisdom to know the difference.

you assert you've studied the science, and then in the same breath say that man does not possess the capability of influencing the climate of the earth....you're either trolling or an uneducated moron....so which is it?

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:50 pm**

Funny you should mention places like the yukon. I would add Siberia. It is a basic geographic fact that large portions of the land mass are in places that Ard currently too fukking cold to live in at the moment. If there is a few degree uptick in temps some pretty fukking big places become more habitable. I believe that this more offsets the places that become uninhabitable deserts

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 8:14 pm**

MS

What point are you trying to make with your graph?

It shows just how wrong the global warming crowd has been. Their 95% certainty is about to be wrong. It also shows temps have at worst been even since the white line. This chart isn't something they want shared.

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 8:31 pm**

smackaholic wrote:Funny you should mention places like the yukon. I would add Siberia. It is a basic geographic fact that large portions of the land mass are in places that Ard currently too fukking cold to live in at the moment. If there is a few degree uptick in temps some pretty fukking big places become more habitable. I believe that this more offsets the places that become uninhabitable deserts

Saw a chart/map (couldn't find it again), that used the IPCC's worst-case numbers, and figured there would be a 20% increase in arable land if their (laughable) predictions did come true.

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 8:43 pm**

Hey, James Inhofe and the Christian Capitalists say hi. Oh, and by the way, this just in..
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30311816

In the first 10 months of 2014, global average air temperature was about 0.57 Celsius above the long-term average.

And the first eleven months in the UK have produced an average temperature 1.6C above the long-term.

A separate study by the UK Met Office says the observed temperatures would be highly unlikely without the influence of greenhouse gases produced by humans.

The global figures come in estimates from the UN's World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

If this year's current global trend continues for the next two months, the previous record years of 1998, 2005 and 2010 will be overtaken by a narrow margin.

The Secretary-General of the WMO, Michel Jarraud, said the preliminary data for 2014 was "consistent with what we expect from a changing climate."

But of course you're armored with your Koch-funded drones of Denial, right? I mean...your "experts" are surely to be trusted, right?

"However much it takes.."

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:05 pm**

Paid shills... SQUAWK!!! Paid shills SQUAWK!!!

You know George Soros throws more money into the climate "debate" than the Koch's, right?

Right?

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:36 pm**

Dead wrong. Here's exactly what's going on..

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/po ... neral.html

And..notice how I back up my take with actual evidence. Unlike your typical empty yapping.

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:57 pm**

Look, pops, here's who's funding this whole denial effort. Now...ask yourself...why would they do this? And what do you think of a scientist who could be purchased so outright, as with these various organizations?

And yeah, this is just the half of it!

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:26 pm**

88 wrote: A few degrees in any direction will not make the planet inhabitable for your future generations.

Ditch digger,
Nice white flag you stupid fuck.

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:06 pm**

Left Seater wrote:MS

What point are you trying to make with your graph?

It shows just how wrong the global warming crowd has been. Their 95% certainty is about to be wrong. It also shows temps have at worst been even since the white line. This chart isn't something they want shared.

It shows that even the right wing thinks the globe warmed some a few years back. Basic science, which always excapes dims, says the his statement that there was no global air warming which could have melted the ice in the first place is, like him, full of shit.
It was the contention of the person floating the theory I (kind of) explained that it might explain the lag. Of course dims is to invested in his cult to even entertain the subject, because he is well, a dumbfuck.

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:14 pm**

88 wrote:Unless you have a way to control sun spots, volcanoes, wind patterns, clouds, aerosols, plant growth, ocean currents, etc. etc. etc., you are just pissing down your own leg.

We can control our input of CO2, which is a greenhouse gas, into the system.

As you pointed out, pop growth is a much worse problem, but that doesn't mean man made climate change isn't happening. As I have stated before, I know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and I know Fossil Fuels are finite and dirty when burned. That's enough for me to try and use as little of them as possible.

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:21 pm**

88 wrote:chart

There seems to a a lot of correlation. Especially when you add in stuff we know about blue-green alge, meteors and volcanic activity.

Posted: **Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:01 am**

But SS, if indeed one SUV doesn't make a difference, well certainly millions do. Right? If you admit that of course humanity can fuck up the ecosystem in short order--as with the Dust Bowl--well how do you possibly conclude we can't do much worse over a protracted behavior of utter disregard for the planet? How can you be so utterly obtuse as to what you've all but conceded? Consider the crucial and urgent matter of ocean acidification, a clear and present catastrophe which is being ignored by hidebound denialists --of which we'd like to think you're not a part of.

Posted: **Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:16 am**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Consider the crucial and urgent matter of ocean acidification, a clear and present catastrophe which is being ignored by hidebound denialists

Absolute, utter, complete junk science.

It would be nice if the grant-whore proponents actually knew what the term "acidification" meant. A basic compound hasn't been "acidified"... dumbass. What junior high school did you go to?

The pH of the oceans has always gone through a somewhat broad range (around 7.9 - 8.2, give or take), and it's been significantly LOWER in the last few centuries. Often with pretty rapid fluctuations.

So, explain to me the "catastrophe"?

Maybe you can start with all of the myriad species that have evolved in the last 300 years? TIA

And the fact is, higher levels of carbonic acid are EXTREMELY good for ocean ecosystems -- it's what makes coral, dumbass.

And you and your ilk need to save the bullshit -- with all the might of human technology, we still can't measure the slight (alleged) changes in ocean pH, only make a decent ballpark guess (which we can also do after-the-fact), regardless what your paid shills have tried to sell you.

You can keep listening to your paid shills (good god, Hansen is getting wealthy), I'll stick with actual, real science (science that hasn't pulled an O-fer on their predictions, proving beyond all doubt an incorrect "theory").

Posted: **Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:33 am**

Look, you dented puck, here's the story--well documented and verified.

http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/acidificatio ... hefilm.asp

Are you actually going to pretend to refute this? Of course not. As is your only option, you'll simply dismiss it out of hand--you know, just as like a child. but of course you won't have refuted anything.

As for your "experts"--and the entire Denial movement, well how much documentation do you need? Every single one is a paid shill. Or is your tunnel vision just part of your basic marching orders?

Why..?...would a wide variety of industrialists--mostly oil--spend hundreds of millions of dollars to deny Climate Change/ Because...they're just wanting t help good folks (like you) who are simple and concerned? So you don't get recruited into the "cult"? Is this why they've organized a massive propaganda campaign?

T1B

Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

Re: Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months