Greenland ice loss accelerating. Read it.
- Thread starter goretex
- Start date
notomatoplz
Active member
man, thats fucked.
BrewskiJunior
Member
Too bad there is nothing we can do to prevent this climate change from happening. The emissions we put off are a sssmmmaaalllllllll part of why climate change is happening. Its the natural cycle of the earth. Shit exactly like this have happened a dozen times in the past million years. And this was before all these emissions. Earths magnetic field has changed over the past dozen years and has affected the global climate of the planet. Running your car is next to nothing to what the earth is already doing by itself.
paulgenovese
Member
Well at least mountain towns will be above water if the water level raises 7 metres ...
daytripper67
Member
whats your problem with that?
kylecross
Member
I honestly can't believe how many people here, a community who should respect the Earth, think that human caused global warming is some sort of conspiracy or lie. Approximately 99% of scientists around the world agree that recent climate changes are human caused. The other 1% is most likely being paid a lot of money by fossil fuel corporations to say otherwise.
So many arguments against human caused climate change fail to realize that for millions of years the environment has adapted to handle natural, pre-industrialized carbon emissions. People will say, "Well, humans only contribute a very small amount of the carbon dioxide that is emitted to the atmosphere", and about this they are totally correct. But the Earth can't adapt to human emissions in such a short time span. If you argue against this, you're arguing against ocean acidification. And this, unlike so many controversial topics, is not controversial. Ocean acidification is a fact, and is currently wiping out organisms that play key roles in food chains (it disentegrates molluscs for example, and thats not good).
And even if your ignorance tells you that its alright to keep burning fossil fuels at current emissions, you might want to rethink dependence on oil. Oil is currently in its peak production levels, meaning we've been finding less oil than than we've been burning for a couple decades. Ultimately, that means that there won't be a whole lot of oil left in the future and what we do have will be too expensive for most people. So the smart thing to do would be to invest in renewables. Even if you don't believe in the "global warming scam."
It's hard to believe that this community relies on cold weather and transportation.
So many arguments against human caused climate change fail to realize that for millions of years the environment has adapted to handle natural, pre-industrialized carbon emissions. People will say, "Well, humans only contribute a very small amount of the carbon dioxide that is emitted to the atmosphere", and about this they are totally correct. But the Earth can't adapt to human emissions in such a short time span. If you argue against this, you're arguing against ocean acidification. And this, unlike so many controversial topics, is not controversial. Ocean acidification is a fact, and is currently wiping out organisms that play key roles in food chains (it disentegrates molluscs for example, and thats not good).
And even if your ignorance tells you that its alright to keep burning fossil fuels at current emissions, you might want to rethink dependence on oil. Oil is currently in its peak production levels, meaning we've been finding less oil than than we've been burning for a couple decades. Ultimately, that means that there won't be a whole lot of oil left in the future and what we do have will be too expensive for most people. So the smart thing to do would be to invest in renewables. Even if you don't believe in the "global warming scam."
It's hard to believe that this community relies on cold weather and transportation.
kylecross
Member
Same thing going on in the east in the Appalachians around West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
Using google earth shows how widespread and ridiculous the problem is right now. If you are somewhat zoomed out so you you can see several states, there are white splotches everywhere throughout the green forests. There's like 400 of these operations there...
Using google earth shows how widespread and ridiculous the problem is right now. If you are somewhat zoomed out so you you can see several states, there are white splotches everywhere throughout the green forests. There's like 400 of these operations there...
ATLskier
Active member
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/greenland-ice-growth.png (if that image did not work, sine it is a png)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115356
thread is over
Drumsenumse
Member
Damn i live in Greenland Nuuk, and i can't feel any of that shit.. I've been skiing earlier and earlier for each year. and i can't feel the water rise.. just my 2 cents
kylecross
Member
Thread not over.
Like most people, you're only seeing what you wanted to see. That figure you posted was taken completely out of context.
I also know how to take something out of context from the same article:
"A modeling study (30) of the Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance under greenhouse global warming has shown that temperature increases up to 2.7°C lead to positive mass-balance changes at high elevations (due to accumulation) and negative at low elevations (due to runoff exceeding accumulation), consistent with our findings, which implies that perhaps a quarter of the growth may be caused by global warming in Greenland (31) in our observation period."
This basically implies that there would be accumulation in the interior even if temperatures were drastically warmer. This argument about the interior of one ice sheet is the worst excuse for calling global warming negligible.
Like most people, you're only seeing what you wanted to see. That figure you posted was taken completely out of context.
I also know how to take something out of context from the same article:
"A modeling study (30) of the Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance under greenhouse global warming has shown that temperature increases up to 2.7°C lead to positive mass-balance changes at high elevations (due to accumulation) and negative at low elevations (due to runoff exceeding accumulation), consistent with our findings, which implies that perhaps a quarter of the growth may be caused by global warming in Greenland (31) in our observation period."
This basically implies that there would be accumulation in the interior even if temperatures were drastically warmer. This argument about the interior of one ice sheet is the worst excuse for calling global warming negligible.
kylecross
Member
Also, ATL dude, way to steal ideas from a completely biased source. a fuckin tv meteorologist. I'm starting to believe that there's some type of meteorology coalition for bad science. It seems like hordes of people love taking bad global warming information from meteorologists
From wikipedia:
"Watts has a skeptical view of CO2-driven global warming
theories. He has said that he had once "been fully engaged in the
belief that CO2 was indeed the root cause of the global warming
problem," but that he later changed his thinking after learning more
about the science.[3] He established the blog, Watts Up With That?,
which is said to present "news and commentary on puzzling things in
life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent
news".[1]"
From wikipedia:
"Watts has a skeptical view of CO2-driven global warming
theories. He has said that he had once "been fully engaged in the
belief that CO2 was indeed the root cause of the global warming
problem," but that he later changed his thinking after learning more
about the science.[3] He established the blog, Watts Up With That?,
which is said to present "news and commentary on puzzling things in
life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent
news".[1]"
ATLskier
Active member
First off how the fuck am I stealing ideas? I provided a link to a study done by scientists. I did not say these were my ideas, or did I imply anything like that.
2nd. The links I gave were not the original source. Maybe you should look a little harder, because the tv meteorologist guy did nothing but report on the findings from a study by Johannessen in 2005. I knew about the study, and did a search for it, but couldn't find the original document. That graph and a brief abstract were all I could find. I dont give a fuck about who that guy is or what he supports. The original source, the scientific study, is what matters.
Third I made only one point.
Ice loss in Greenland is not accelerating. Ice is accumulating. Although I hold a position that climate change is not caused by humans(a view not based on this study), I did not say anything about climate change. I disputed the original post that ice loss is accelerating.
4th. Your conspiracy theory of a coalition of meteorologists promoting bad science to support their views is absolutely laughable when you have the IPCC manipulating data and calling out that many scientists support their views and data when they did not and left the IPCC.
2nd. The links I gave were not the original source. Maybe you should look a little harder, because the tv meteorologist guy did nothing but report on the findings from a study by Johannessen in 2005. I knew about the study, and did a search for it, but couldn't find the original document. That graph and a brief abstract were all I could find. I dont give a fuck about who that guy is or what he supports. The original source, the scientific study, is what matters.
Third I made only one point.
Ice loss in Greenland is not accelerating. Ice is accumulating. Although I hold a position that climate change is not caused by humans(a view not based on this study), I did not say anything about climate change. I disputed the original post that ice loss is accelerating.
4th. Your conspiracy theory of a coalition of meteorologists promoting bad science to support their views is absolutely laughable when you have the IPCC manipulating data and calling out that many scientists support their views and data when they did not and left the IPCC.
BravoWhiskey5280
Active member
Now i know its Glenn Beck, but its very interesting. Lord Mocknoton is crazy smart.
Shreddysaurus
Active member
that was really really interesting. it completely conflicts my original idea about global warming but really makes me think and almost makes me want to change my mind. I think it really shows that this world is nothing but politics and if you really want answers for yourself pertaining to something like this you pretty much need to be a scientist. or at least that is how i am starting to feel.
ok, those videos are fucking absurd... the first one isnt even logical. i dont even know where to start with how wrong he is, and his challenge to al gore is the fox news MO... make a threat to which no reasonable answer can be given and therefore assume your own correctness. and you feel like you need to be a scientist yourself to get honest answers? how fucked is that? you cant trust those meant to report facts because its all too politically biased... thats because they spin it that way. you can still go to any university library or search online academic databases for legitimate scientific reports... but fox news doesn't report on that, they just spew diatribe against their political opponent of the week, determined by whoever's paying.
secondly, this is and isn't an argument of economics. it is, in that everything is in some regard, but it isnt because the basis of the whole ecology/sustainability concern is not about profit... which a conservative economist just cant seem to grasp. it's about maintaining a stable and livable planet. we really are at a point where this is a concern... we have the capability to drastically change the earth and we are everyday. the cuban missile crisis very nearly ended life on earth... i mean... it could happen. at this point, only people on the fringe are asking for the kind of global economic shutdown these guys are so afraid of. the current focus of a sustainable economy is simply on shifting the inputs to industries that are less destructive to the natural world... and if you honestly have no concern for the well being of the natural world i suggest you go try living in space, because thats absurd. and i mean in space, not in a space vessel of any sort.
the current economic model is based on infinite growth based on resource consumption... that would require the eventual consumption of the entire universe... its impossible. and were at a point where problems are being detected... and have been for 50 years... in the manner in which we conduct business. im off topic from the OP but... thats the end result of the politicization of the issue. so... dont be fucking retarded, glen beck isnt a credible news source and even his home town hates him.http://www.newshounds.us/2009/09/28..._mt_vernon_residents_say_change_the_locks.php
now, the issue here is warming, rising seas due to melting ice from greenland... a warming sea will melt oversea ice, and create heavier snowfall over leeward mountains. thus, slightly thicker glaciation over land, and extreme melting nearer the ocean, resulting in massive net melting and further inputs into the vicous cycle that were seeing. not that complicated... and yes im sure you can find a scientist who refutes it but i guarantee you those are the ones with the agendas.
secondly, this is and isn't an argument of economics. it is, in that everything is in some regard, but it isnt because the basis of the whole ecology/sustainability concern is not about profit... which a conservative economist just cant seem to grasp. it's about maintaining a stable and livable planet. we really are at a point where this is a concern... we have the capability to drastically change the earth and we are everyday. the cuban missile crisis very nearly ended life on earth... i mean... it could happen. at this point, only people on the fringe are asking for the kind of global economic shutdown these guys are so afraid of. the current focus of a sustainable economy is simply on shifting the inputs to industries that are less destructive to the natural world... and if you honestly have no concern for the well being of the natural world i suggest you go try living in space, because thats absurd. and i mean in space, not in a space vessel of any sort.
the current economic model is based on infinite growth based on resource consumption... that would require the eventual consumption of the entire universe... its impossible. and were at a point where problems are being detected... and have been for 50 years... in the manner in which we conduct business. im off topic from the OP but... thats the end result of the politicization of the issue. so... dont be fucking retarded, glen beck isnt a credible news source and even his home town hates him.http://www.newshounds.us/2009/09/28..._mt_vernon_residents_say_change_the_locks.php
now, the issue here is warming, rising seas due to melting ice from greenland... a warming sea will melt oversea ice, and create heavier snowfall over leeward mountains. thus, slightly thicker glaciation over land, and extreme melting nearer the ocean, resulting in massive net melting and further inputs into the vicous cycle that were seeing. not that complicated... and yes im sure you can find a scientist who refutes it but i guarantee you those are the ones with the agendas.
kylecross
Member
This dude knows...
The current economic theory of most people is totally wrong. I don't understand why people think there is an unlimited amount of resources on Earth. It's most definitely limited. You'll know this when oil is ridiculously priced and our economy is completely destroyed within a decade or two.
And ATL, I was joking about the coalition thing. But really, it could be true
The current economic theory of most people is totally wrong. I don't understand why people think there is an unlimited amount of resources on Earth. It's most definitely limited. You'll know this when oil is ridiculously priced and our economy is completely destroyed within a decade or two.
And ATL, I was joking about the coalition thing. But really, it could be true
Gorilla.Steeze
Active member
The IPCC is a joke, a total of 56 scientists compiled the whole "Global Warming" report. Remember the "hockey stick" graph that was included in their reports and in Al Gore's video? Well the IPCC has now omitted this graph based on scientific inaccuracies. It fails to recognized the known middle age warm period where temperatures were significantly higher than they are now. I mean it is scientific fact that the vikings used to farm on Greenland during a much warmer period in the earth. How is this warming possible without increased CO2 emissions? Oh yea, the earth heats and cools all the time without the help of CO2. In fact, temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way around. CO2 also makes up 0.05% of ALL greenhouse gases. Thats 1/2000th of all greenhouse gases. Now your telling me a negligible increase in this is going to make the earth warm up to 7 degrees in 100 years and that all of the ice caps are going to melt? I find that hard to believe.
The greatest agent of global warming and cooling: THE SUN...isn't it obvious?
Before I get bashed for spewing facts here are some sources:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
http://ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086
http://www.iceagenow.com/Top_Scientists_say_global_warming_is_a_lie.htm
There are so many more but just use google
The greatest agent of global warming and cooling: THE SUN...isn't it obvious?
Before I get bashed for spewing facts here are some sources:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
http://ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086
http://www.iceagenow.com/Top_Scientists_say_global_warming_is_a_lie.htm
There are so many more but just use google
ATLskier
Active member
first before I even respond to your post, I'd like to say Lord Monckton is one of the classiest, most down to earth people I've ever met, especially for a politician. I met him about a month or so ago when he spoke to a group at my college and he stayed around for a few hours to talk with everyone...theres more, but I thought I would just say that.
now to your post...(wow this will be lots of fun)
First, in general, you cry out that all of the scientists that dispute man made global warming have agendas, and with that, you insinuate that all of your scientists that support the theory of human caused global warming are perfect, not politically biased and are free from the reaches of evil capitalism, corporations, and have no influences on their belief. It's so fucking hypocritical. These scientists that work for the government, that support the government, that work for the IPCC all have agendas too. The government can give them money to do these fucking computer models, (that can give you any result you want) so the government has the reasoning to tax carbon dioxide. Just look what's happening now.
"ok, those videos are fucking absurd... the first one isnt even logical. i dont even know where to start with how wrong he is,"
Well fucking start, because you didn't even back this statement up. I will give you that in the first video, the presentation is very simple, but it was 3 minutes. If you would see Lord Monckton's presentation outside of Glenn Beck's show, he would be able to show you far more data and research and facts that support what he is saying.
"and his challenge to al gore is the fox news MO... make a threat to which no reasonable answer can be given and therefore assume your own correctness. and you feel like you need to be a scientist yourself to get honest answers? how fucked is that? you cant trust those meant to report facts because its all too politically biased... thats because they spin it that way. you can still go to any university library or search online academic databases for legitimate scientific reports... but fox news doesn't report on that, they just spew diatribe against their political opponent of the week, determined by whoever's paying."
If you were to fucking pay attention at all, this deal with Al Gore has nothing to do with Fox News. Fox news has nothing to do with this argument. Lord Monckton has been challenging Al Gore for this for a long time. Look at what he did in Great Britain in regards to An Inconvenient Truth being shown in schools there. This is not about fox news, but since you liberals hate it so much, if something is on it, you assume is a lie built by the vast extreme right political machine. I dont know what youre talking about in the middle of the quote...He never said anything about not trusting scientists in this video. He obviously trusts scientists because he has used them as sources and references in his presentations. Again, you're going off again on fox news, although it has nothing to do with this. Lord Monckton uses legitimate scientific reports.
"secondly, this is and isn't an argument of economics. it is, in that everything is in some regard, but it isnt because the basis of the whole ecology/sustainability concern is not about profit... which a conservative economist just cant seem to grasp. it's about maintaining a stable and livable planet. we really are at a point where this is a concern... we have the capability to drastically change the earth and we are everyday. "
It is def. about economics. Depending on the level and size of legislation, from Cap and Trade to the Copenhagen Treaty, it deals with economics on a massive scale.
Look, I am all for responsible sustainability and all that(I design green buildings). It's not jsut about maintaining a stable and livable planet. The point Lord Monckton made is at the global level, trying to reduce carbon emissions, will not have a great effect on global temperature. That is what everyone is worried about...rising sea levels, big storms, all that crap. Cap and trade...its not going to bring the earth's temperature down more than a 1/1000th of a degree. The copenhagen treaty is nothing but a global redistribution of wealth. I've read parts of it and it establishes a world wide government, where each country has no representation(no elections) in it and is subject to it. Anyways in regards to climate change and carbon emissions (THE ISSUE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT), We CAN NOT drastically change the earth with what we are doing now. The reason they bring up a global economic shut down, is that it would take 33 years of that to stop one degree of warming...The sun has a much bigger effect on the earth and temperature and its going to do whatever the fuck it wants. There is nothing we can do but adapt and that is where the resources should go. When legislation that is passed for global warming curbing carbon emissions worldwide, it hurts the third world harder than anyone else. Cheap refrigeration for example is no longer cheap, and the third world is fucked...they cant afford more expensive shit.
Not polluting is great. no one wants acid rain and we hate seeing chemicals in our lakes and streams. But carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. I dont give a shit what the EPA says. We fucking breathe it out.
"the current economic model is based on infinite growth based on resource consumption..."
please support this. Economics is about the most effecient use of finite resources. People understand that oil and other resources are limited.
"so... dont be fucking retarded, glen beck isnt a credible news source and even his home town hates him. http://www.newshounds.us/2009/09/28/glenn_beck_receives_key_to_mt_vernon_residents_say_change_the_locks.php"
Wow, can you please add some more fallacies. I dont think I've had enough on this thread yet.
DID GLENN BECK FUCKING SAY ANYTHING IN THIS VIDEO....NO Lord Monckton did. glenn beck is not claiming to be an expert on global warming. And his town hating him has nothing to do with this AT ALL. glenn beck doesn't have anything to do with this either.
"and yes im sure you can find a scientist who refutes it but i guarantee you those are the ones with the agendas."
Yup, any scientist that disagrees with the IPCC or the government has an agenda to continue recieving money from greedy oil companies. Give me a fucking break. You have no idea what the fuck your talking about. You talk like these other scientists that work for the IPCC UN and government have no angendas...wow that's a fucking joke.
now to your post...(wow this will be lots of fun)
First, in general, you cry out that all of the scientists that dispute man made global warming have agendas, and with that, you insinuate that all of your scientists that support the theory of human caused global warming are perfect, not politically biased and are free from the reaches of evil capitalism, corporations, and have no influences on their belief. It's so fucking hypocritical. These scientists that work for the government, that support the government, that work for the IPCC all have agendas too. The government can give them money to do these fucking computer models, (that can give you any result you want) so the government has the reasoning to tax carbon dioxide. Just look what's happening now.
"ok, those videos are fucking absurd... the first one isnt even logical. i dont even know where to start with how wrong he is,"
Well fucking start, because you didn't even back this statement up. I will give you that in the first video, the presentation is very simple, but it was 3 minutes. If you would see Lord Monckton's presentation outside of Glenn Beck's show, he would be able to show you far more data and research and facts that support what he is saying.
"and his challenge to al gore is the fox news MO... make a threat to which no reasonable answer can be given and therefore assume your own correctness. and you feel like you need to be a scientist yourself to get honest answers? how fucked is that? you cant trust those meant to report facts because its all too politically biased... thats because they spin it that way. you can still go to any university library or search online academic databases for legitimate scientific reports... but fox news doesn't report on that, they just spew diatribe against their political opponent of the week, determined by whoever's paying."
If you were to fucking pay attention at all, this deal with Al Gore has nothing to do with Fox News. Fox news has nothing to do with this argument. Lord Monckton has been challenging Al Gore for this for a long time. Look at what he did in Great Britain in regards to An Inconvenient Truth being shown in schools there. This is not about fox news, but since you liberals hate it so much, if something is on it, you assume is a lie built by the vast extreme right political machine. I dont know what youre talking about in the middle of the quote...He never said anything about not trusting scientists in this video. He obviously trusts scientists because he has used them as sources and references in his presentations. Again, you're going off again on fox news, although it has nothing to do with this. Lord Monckton uses legitimate scientific reports.
"secondly, this is and isn't an argument of economics. it is, in that everything is in some regard, but it isnt because the basis of the whole ecology/sustainability concern is not about profit... which a conservative economist just cant seem to grasp. it's about maintaining a stable and livable planet. we really are at a point where this is a concern... we have the capability to drastically change the earth and we are everyday. "
It is def. about economics. Depending on the level and size of legislation, from Cap and Trade to the Copenhagen Treaty, it deals with economics on a massive scale.
Look, I am all for responsible sustainability and all that(I design green buildings). It's not jsut about maintaining a stable and livable planet. The point Lord Monckton made is at the global level, trying to reduce carbon emissions, will not have a great effect on global temperature. That is what everyone is worried about...rising sea levels, big storms, all that crap. Cap and trade...its not going to bring the earth's temperature down more than a 1/1000th of a degree. The copenhagen treaty is nothing but a global redistribution of wealth. I've read parts of it and it establishes a world wide government, where each country has no representation(no elections) in it and is subject to it. Anyways in regards to climate change and carbon emissions (THE ISSUE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT), We CAN NOT drastically change the earth with what we are doing now. The reason they bring up a global economic shut down, is that it would take 33 years of that to stop one degree of warming...The sun has a much bigger effect on the earth and temperature and its going to do whatever the fuck it wants. There is nothing we can do but adapt and that is where the resources should go. When legislation that is passed for global warming curbing carbon emissions worldwide, it hurts the third world harder than anyone else. Cheap refrigeration for example is no longer cheap, and the third world is fucked...they cant afford more expensive shit.
Not polluting is great. no one wants acid rain and we hate seeing chemicals in our lakes and streams. But carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. I dont give a shit what the EPA says. We fucking breathe it out.
"the current economic model is based on infinite growth based on resource consumption..."
please support this. Economics is about the most effecient use of finite resources. People understand that oil and other resources are limited.
"so... dont be fucking retarded, glen beck isnt a credible news source and even his home town hates him. http://www.newshounds.us/2009/09/28/glenn_beck_receives_key_to_mt_vernon_residents_say_change_the_locks.php"
Wow, can you please add some more fallacies. I dont think I've had enough on this thread yet.
DID GLENN BECK FUCKING SAY ANYTHING IN THIS VIDEO....NO Lord Monckton did. glenn beck is not claiming to be an expert on global warming. And his town hating him has nothing to do with this AT ALL. glenn beck doesn't have anything to do with this either.
"and yes im sure you can find a scientist who refutes it but i guarantee you those are the ones with the agendas."
Yup, any scientist that disagrees with the IPCC or the government has an agenda to continue recieving money from greedy oil companies. Give me a fucking break. You have no idea what the fuck your talking about. You talk like these other scientists that work for the IPCC UN and government have no angendas...wow that's a fucking joke.
Gorilla.Steeze
Active member
its refreshing to know that some people think for themselves these days. i love hearing the claim "the science is settled" where in reality its absurd how controversial it really is. i can't tell you how many people i've had a conversation with about climate change and those that support it generally only reference Al Gore's video and preach it as truth. "Well Al Gore is smart and used to be Vice President." exactly, hes a politician. Politicans lie ALL THE TIME
Shreddysaurus
Active member
Ya you can go to a library and find "legitimate scientific reports" but for every legitimate report you find to disprove global warming there gonna be a legitimate report proving global warming. So all the power sticking to your own opinion and whatever it is stand behind it because in my eyes its a never ending debate that isnt going to be proven or disproved until we all live in either an oven or a giant freezer.
Gorilla.Steeze
Active member
I like how you prove that it is settled by simply telling me that I should listen to you. You've got a great argument there. If scientists can't even predict if it is going to rain tomorrow how in gods name can they predict these massive and catastrophic shifts in climate. In the 1980s the WIDESPREAD CONSENSUS AMONG SCIENTISTS (sound familiar?) was that the earth was cooling and that we were in danger of another ice age. See how fickle the scientific and news communities are?
ThaLorax
Active member
all i can think to say to that is "damn, well put". however (and this is coming from a huge environmentalist) there are people who are taking advantage of this situation. read/watch my post from the last page and you'll see what I'm talking about. for one, al gore and the IPCC straight up manipulate their data. it's sickening to think how people can do such a thing but it is happening. people will do anything for a buck.