Free Markets, Free People

Climate change: About that massive ice melt … yeah, never mind

While “the science is settled” and name calling are about all the climate alarmists have in their mostly empty rebuttal quiver, real science continues to destroy their ‘settled science’.

I’m sure you remember all the doom and gloom emanating from the claims that massive amounts of ice was melting and would raise sea levels to catastrophic heights, don’t you? 

Yeah, well, it appears – shock of shocks – that those making those claims didn’t use science at all.  They apparently just kind of made it up if the American Geophysical Union’s latest research is to be believed:

"Previous ocean models … have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place," says Tore Hattermann of the Norwegian Polar Institute, member of a team which has obtained two years’ worth of direct measurements below the massive Fimbul Ice Shelf in eastern Antarctica – the first ever to be taken.

[…]

It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted …

In fact:

Overall, according to the team, their field data shows "steady state mass balance" on the eastern Antarctic coasts – ie, that no ice is being lost from the massive shelves there. The research is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

You don’t say?  But, but “climate deniers are the same as Holocaust deniers”, “the sciences is settled”, “consensus”, the “vast majority of the world’s scientists agree”,  “IPCC”,  yatta, yatta, yatta.

Again we see the so-called science wasn’t based on science at all – it was based on computer models “without any direct data for comparison or guidance” which then naturally got the results the “scientists” were looking for.

I’d love to say I’m stunned, but I’m not.

We’ve known this was happening for how long now?   It’s just that the evidence just keeps coming out, doesn’t it.

If you’re still an alarmist that believes in the “science” that was put out in the IPCC report and an “Inconvenient Truth”, then it isn’t science we’re talking about anymore –  it’s religion.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

52 Responses to Climate change: About that massive ice melt … yeah, never mind

  • I would appreciate your response to the following article: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/global_warming_creates_600-mil.html

    • I’d like to see some of this paper explained.  They are claiming that there is a 600 mile “hot spot” causing the ocean to rise more in this local area.
      I can understand a temporary (months) distortion of the sea level to a locality which is usual attributed to wind direction, but one that began in 1990 that goes to the present in a local region isn’t “global” in any sense of warming … there isn’t any ice to melt in this area for most of the year.
      The last reported major distortion of sea level readings was off the Japanese coast, which was followed by a major earthquake that caused the on-shore ground level and off-shore sea floor level to change as much as 10 meters in some places.

      • I looked through the original Nature paper, and it didn’t contain the alarmism in the article linked above. If the authors of the paper have it right, there has been a rise in sea levels on a restricted part of the East Coast, and this could well be from the temperature increases after 1970 affecting Greenland ice or other factors in that area of the globe.

        But, first, a localized effect such as this isn’t very strong evidence for alarmism. Second, there could be a lot of lag involved – recent increase might be based on temperature increases that stopped ten years ago.

        The alarmism is mostly based on hypotheticals, such as changes in the Gulf Stream. Which we know is subject to natural cycles, so even if it causes problems, that’s not necessarily attributed to any manmade causes.

        In fact, this entire area of research must be interpreted in light of natural cycles as a driver. The research paper in Nature says:

        With our limited series length, the presence of cycles, for example associated with natural ocean variability and/or AMO, is indeterminate.  [emphasis mine] In the Holocene geologic record of an NEH marsh, the authors of ref. 28 found evidence of several rapid SLR increases separated by 900 yr or more that they associated with gyre changes. Regardless, our correlations suggest that should temperatures rise in the twenty-first century as projected, the NEH SLRD will continue to increase.

        So we’ve got a long way to go to understand what results like this study mean, how they fit into a global picture, how they might differ from what would naturally occur anyway, and whether the projections based on recent data last very far into the future. Remember that we had a bunch of projections from people such as those data-hiding folks at CRU that they put out in the 1990s that had us well into crisis territory by now. They were later forced to admit that temperatures did not go up the way their models predicted, and that it was a “travesty” that they couldn’t explain why.

        The actual article cited by McQ is much more suggestive than the Nature study because it’s more global in scope. And again, it demonstrates extreme weaknesses in the continued cries of alarmism by the climate change fanatics.

      • See paragraph 5 of the article: “Computer models long have projected higher levels along parts of the East Coast because of changes in ocean currents from global warming, but this is the first study to show that’s already happened.”
        More explanation of the localalized phenomenon in grafs 9-10.

    • “Climate change pushes up sea levels by melting ice sheets in Greenland and west Antarctica, and because warmer water expands.”
      Why, because they say so?  that’s the only possible reason?  There’s no proof offered for the declaration, just the statement presented as fact.
       
      ‘On the West Coast, a National Research Council report released Friday projects an average 3-foot rise in sea level in California by the year 2100, and 2 feet in Oregon and Washington. The land mass north of the San Andreas Fault is expected to rise, offsetting the rising sea level in those two states.”
      well, except for the gauges in the report that predict the east coast flooding are showing a decline all along the Pacific coast according to the paper they’re using to alarm us about the dangers caused by coal and SUV’s between Hatteras and Boston…
      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nclimate1597_F2.html
      Note, the gauges are BLUE, that indicates an SLR decline (so SLD) all along the West coast, whups.  No currents or warming there I suppose….
      Since the uplift compensates, for the SLR, according to the study the article cites, I suppose we’re seeing uplift only right now all along the coast (why, even South/west of the San Andreas, how interesting)  But clearly a 2mm per year decline won’t add up to a 3 foot rise in the next 100 years along the California coast no matter how hard one tries.
       
      So, which part of the article are we to believe since it contradicts itself from West Coast to East Coast based on 2 different studies  Shall I pick the data I like then?

  • Why is the headline of the article “Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all,” when the research only looked at the Fimbrul Shelf in East Antarctica?  True skeptics might wonder if someone was overgeneralizing from cherry-picked data.

    • Why were we told that the ice was melting in the first place when it was not actually measured, but just a goddamn computer model?
       

  • Thank goodness we have the collection of climatologists on this blog to help us wade through all that stupid data.  It’s pretty easy to find articles to say what you want them to say, don’t you think?  Here look, I found one that says the world is ending!
    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html
     

    • Here’s the deal, though, binky.  Nobody on this blog will take your rights, property, or money, or tell you that you can’t use it.

      • Presumably you won’t be doing it because doing so would require you to be away from this blog for longer than five minutes.  I can’t speak as to everyone else.
        If you destroy the environment that allows me to live, sustain my family, and exercise  the property rights you speak of, you have constructively deprived me of my property rights.  This is not a difficult offshoot of some basic property principles.  You can’t grade your property such that you flood mine, etc.

        • Well chuck, you put your money where your mouth is then and cut back on your power use, and your gas and whatever else makes you feel like a good little world citizen, and IF it gets ugly, you can come around and take my shit to compensate you for any damage you can prove I caused to you as a result of MY failure to agree with you today by not letting you and yours take MY money and MY property because you’re all scared of natural changes to the environment and convinced WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!
           
          YOU might start by shutting that PC down, those CPUs they, get pretty hot you know and you’re blowin all that hot air into my atmosphere.  It has to go somewhere ya know, and you’re heating the joint up.  Why am I betting that’s not gonna happen any time soon.
           
           

          • That was one awesome run-on sentence.  Well done.  I never asked anyone to take your property.  We are talking about the theory here.
             
            I have made efforts to cut way back on power consumption.  Thank you for asking.  Since you are on a limited government site, may I presume you are refusing to participate in the government because it is currently and undeniably out of control?  After all, that would be putting your money where your mouth is.  No voting, paying of taxes, military service, etc.?  That would seem logical.

          • Well, yeah, as a matter of fact I’d be perfectly happy for less government.  Limited government doesn’t mean we/you don’t vote, it means you want less government to have to VOTE on, and it doesn’t mean you don’t have an obligation to service, or taxes (others may argue this point).
             
            But you knew that, presumably.  You’re just being a smartass while whining that we’re all being smartasses to you.  I can see we failed to qualify in our comments here that many of us might believe the earth IS warming, but it’s mostly natural.  Not like you ASKED though – you waltzed in and didn’t check to see where we stood, you ASSUMED you knew, based on comments on how many articles?  One?
             
            And let me clarify – yes, you did ask someone to take my property – right here –
            “If you destroy the environment that allows me to live, sustain my family, and exercise  the property rights you speak of, you have constructively deprived me of my property rights.  This is not a difficult offshoot of some basic property principles.  You can’t grade your property such that you flood mine, etc.”
            You appealed to your life, and your family and told us we were depriving you of your rights because we disagreed with the article in question.  “the commentary on this site seems to suggest that no one here believes there is any warming whatsoever that is caused by man’s activities.”  Somewhere in there is buried the premise that we, those of us here, need to do things to make YOU happy, even if those things cost us money, or just make US unhappy.
             
            The point TW, is under limited government principles, we won’t be telling you what you can do to protect yourself from global warming and we won’t be taxing you to give us you money to carry forward our idea that it isn’t warming because of man.

        • When you can prove any of that crap…like in my bailiwick (a court)…you be sure to let me know.
          What a prick.

          • If you’re a lawyer, I would expect you to understand some of these principles of property law.  That you don’t suggests why you’re able to spend so much time on this site.
             
            And if we’re calling names, I will call you a typical internet tough guy, one who is an obvious failure at life as demonstrated by how much time he can spend actually being an internet tough guy.  Here’s the part where you respond by telling us all how many employees and how many summer homes you have.  You know, impossible to verify or disprove claims and such.
             
            And with that, I leave you children to your pretend scientist party.  Enjoy yourselves.

        • And you pretend to be a scientist??
           
          “If you destroy the environment that allows me to live, sustain my family, and exercise the property rights you speak of, you have constructively deprived me of my property rights.”
          First prove that releasing CO2 “destroys” the environment. As it is the current CO2 level is slightly above that at which plants begin to fail to live. See, plants and the oceans have been taking CO2 out of the atmosphere for so long that if it carried on much longer much life would soon start to fail. Life does much much better when the atmosphere is warmer and contains more CO2. So whose property rights are you infringing by demanding that the CO2 level be maintained at a dangerously low level?
          “You can’t grade your property such that you flood mine, etc.”
          No, but can you prove that releasing CO2 specifically damages your property rights? No, you can’t. Climate models can’t predict anything local and fail miserably at a global level when projected a few years outside their calibration periods. However, the benefits of releasing CO2 (apart from the aforementioned better life for plants and others) are much more numerous.
          So your appeal to your damaged property rights is a trivial strawman. I know that there are some “talking points” lists floating around the web, made up by various AGW proponents to try and shutdown argument, and this looks like it is straight off one of those.

        • “You can’t grade your property such that you flood mine, etc.”
           
          Unless, of course, I am willing to pay the government more than you do (see Kelo, eminent domain, etc.).

    • Yeah. What arrogant jerks we are. When we ought to just be accepting the judgment of our betters on these things. Even when our betters are caught exaggerating, fabricating data, illegally hiding data, suppressing contrary opinions from scientific journals…

      I mean, really. Thinking for ourselves? How gauche.

      By the way, does your distaste for non-climatologists getting involved in the debate over climate extend to Al Gore? Just wondering.

      • I think Al Gore is a moron who should stay out of things.  He also has a very hard time putting his money where his mouth is, with all of that buying up giant houses and new SUVs, etc.  But that doesn’t change the debate.  You’re not “thinking for [yourselves,]” you’re using the thoughts of some real outliers to justify your preconceived opinions.  At least Al Gore, for all of his annoyances, had the backing of the majority thought on his side.
        Let’s put it this way: If this blog had a debate about whether tobacco causes cancer, I would expect the “free thinkers” on this blog to have believed the two guys Phillip Morris found to testify that there is no good data linking tobacco with cancer, because there are so many other things that could cause cancer.  In fact, given the state of that science, I think consistency demands you take that position right now.

        • “You’re not “thinking for [yourselves,]” you’re using the thoughts of some real outliers to justify your preconceived opinions.”

          And you know that how?

          Did you read the emails from Climategate? Did you analyze the FORTRAN code used to produce their results, and read the infamous README file that accompanied it?

          Did you take statistics any higher than freshman level? I did – graduate level, in fact.

          Do you have any training in science? I took two years of Honor Physics, chemistry through organic and biochem, and three years of biology.

          So we’ll take your argument by assertion for exactly what it’s worth: nothing.

          Oh, and by the way, you might enjoy reading this from the “godfather of global warming” and the originator of the Gaia hypothesis:

          Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

          Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.

          Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

          Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

          Now come on back and tell us again how we just cherry pick. Schmuck.

          • You know people are weak when they resort to shouting down the opposition and name-calling.  Congratulations on your high school honors courses.  I’m sure your parents got extra bumper stickers to make sure the world knows that.  How many reading classes did you take?  You seem to have missed this:
            Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions,
             
            I have an M.S. in Meteorology.  To be sure, this is not remotely the same thing as climatology.  However, I think I can at least hang in the argument about the substantive data.  But I am not the authority.  I never came here to tout that the world was coming to an end.  If you read my original post, I think you will find exactly the opposite.  I find that MIT study laughable.  However, the commentary on this site seems to suggest that no one here believes there is any warming whatsoever that is caused by man’s activities.  I just find that mind-blowing.  To find those persons in the realm of the sciences takes a lot of searching.

          • No, if we look at your original post – you’re a smartass.  You said not a word about the MIT Study –
            “Thank goodness we have the collection of climatologists on this blog to help us wade through all that stupid data.  It’s pretty easy to find articles to say what you want them to say, don’t you think?  Here look, I found one that says the world is ending!”
             
            There’s your original post chuck, where you instantly decided who and what we were and let us know how much smarter you were, and how cool your internet master’s in Meteorology was.   Have a nice afternoon.

          • “However, the commentary on this site seems to suggest that no one here believes there is any warming whatsoever that is caused by man’s activities. I just find that mind-blowing.”

            Well, then, despite your degree in meteorology, you don’t seem to read for comprehension very well.

            Opinions here vary a fair amount, but a general summary that takes in a lot of us would be that we think warming might well be occurring, but it’s not clear how much or what causes it. We think things like solar variability are not properly accounted for in the models. A lot of us come from a software background, and we’re skeptical of computer models because we know how flawed they can be – the phrase “garbage in, garbage out” has made it to the mainstream but started in the software world.

            The one thing just about all of us do agree on is this: pompous frauds like the UN IPCC and Hadley CRU don’t get to assert to the rest of us that we should give up our money and our freedom based on their not very well supported assertions, without severe and continuous pushback. Neither do you. We will look at the data and make up our own minds, rather than submit to the status of proles who should do whatever our wise masters tell us to.

            We know that such people are unable to be objective about things that affect them personally – that’s public choice economics. We know they have biases. We’ve seen that they slant, and sometimes outright fabricate, research. So every time they assert that we need to give them more power, influence, and money, we look at that with the skepticism of free men who refuse to submit to those who seek power for power’s sake.

            By the way, your stupid dig about high school courses is noted, and looker has already pointed out that you fired the first shot on getting personal. Hey, if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. We’ve seen your kind around here for years – always asserting things, but somehow never really backing them up.

          • You seem to have missed this:”

            Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions,

            Most science-based skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (AGW) also believe that AGW is occurring.  They are skeptical that the alarmist predictions are accurate, based upon the failure of alarmists to be scientifically rigid, mathematically sound, or methodologically transparent.
            And, the dirty little secret of the “save the Earth” movement is that if human industry has a significant impact on global warming, then the only way to reverse AGW would be to dismantle human industry so that most humans are living in pre-industrial agrarian conditions (i.e., drastic downgrade of living conditions to third world levels), which means mass starvation and disease (you need greenhouse-gas producing power to process human waste, for example).  Virtually all of the “green” suggestions made by activists to reduce carbon footprints are so insignificant relative to the quantity which would be required to change global warming (assuming the alarmist predictions are correct) that it does not matter one bit whether you “do your part” or not.  Nothing short of shutting down power plants and banning most cars, trucks, and automobiles will do the trick.
            Thus, either we’re screwed and all of this “green” stuff is just shuffling the decks on the Titanic, a great big farce to make us feel like we’re helping when we’re not, or the predictions are so exaggerated that the panic is the farce, an excuse to scare people into surrendering their liberty to the carpet baggers like Al Gore, who are in it for the power/money.
            Pick your poison.  Or, decide not to be a poltroon..

        • “At least Al Gore, for all of his annoyances, had the backing of the majority thought on his side.”
           
          Ah, the majority, so Gore was wrong and he’s an idiot because he’s not sincere enough, but he was right.  I see.
           
          We’re not thinking for ourselves.  You mean, you rushed in and told us there was a monster outside and we went to look instead of buying your patented consensus approved monster trap?
           
          “Let’s put it this way: If this blog had a debate about whether tobacco causes cancer, I would expect the “free thinkers” on this blog to have believed the two guys Phillip Morris found to testify that there is no good data linking tobacco with cancer, because there are so many other things that could cause cancer.  In fact, given the state of that science, I think consistency demands you take that position right now.”
          No, what you actually could anticipate is if you come in here and claim tobacco causes all cancer we’d argue that point.  We like this science thing where you don’t get a majority opinion, you present your data and you let real scientists try exactly the same experiments you did and see if they come to the same conclusion.  You don’t get to mandate a global ‘consensus’ signed by various and sundry non climate scientists and politicians and call it science.

        • No. I doubt anybody here would be in the tank for “Big Tobacco.”  Afterall, all the statisticians from the Tobacco Institute now must be doing the same job at some federal agency or university with a federal grant, but now applying their trade to proving that a minor green house gases can have catastrophic effects on the planet.

        • Gee, you must have a lot of time on your hands since you seem to spend lots of it following this site and memorizing what goes on here. I hope that doesn’t mean you, too, are a failure at life.

    • Hey, TW, do you ever express an opinion about anything but climatology? If you do, you should stop because obviously you’re just not qualified to have one. Do you feel you’re intelligent enough to read about a subject, research it, engage in critical thinking and then express an opinion that has some credibility and validity?

      Or are you restricted to just climatology?

      • Did he leave?  I was just gonna take some time to kick him around, good and proper.  Damn…

    • Thank goodness there is never an end of gullible fools who fall for every scare hoax that comes around. If it were not for people like you maybe the alarmists would have to like do real research or something.

  • There was a recent paper that set forth the argument that due to Antarctica melting that Emperor penguins were endangered.
    The only problem was that Antarctica ice has been growing, not shrinking.

  • Did Erb change his handle to TW????

    • Based on the fact that TW didn’t call us inbred or compare us to Goebbels, I’m guessing not.

      But I can tell they have some things in common. They are not used to debating people who disagree with them and can back it up. They both think anyone who disagrees with them is simply ignorant. They both like to put words in other people’s mouths. And neither one can read for comprehension worth a darn.

      • Plus, he did not display the dogged obdurate “last word or die” trait of the true narcissist pseudo-intellectual.  A much weaker reed, altogether.

        • Give it a few days.  The post is still on the front page.  Wait till it’s off everyone’s radar and dollars-to-doughnuts he’ll be back around replying to it.

  • All of you are missing the clear wisdom of TW’s posts: since you don’t support the statist power grab, you should shut up and grab your ankles. Oh, and this doesn’t just apply to Hide the Decline; Fast and Furious and all the other statist efforts are stuff you should shut up about as well.

    • “you should shut up and grab your ankles.”
      While we ‘logically’ limit ourselves to not voting to show we believe in limited government?
       
       

      • You know how enlightened logic works, right? We are dense right wing bigots, and always wrong, and the enlightened left is always right, and proper logic is whatever is required to reach that conclusion. Oh, and the logic can change as needed, the only consistent aspect is the conclusion.

        That’s why Bush firing lawyers was a conspiracy even though he had every right to do so; he was clearly wrong because he was Bush, and a right wing bigot. On the other hand, Obama’s gun running is all good, since his intensions were pure. Sometimes someone needs to sacrifise for the greater good, and it is reasonable that several hundred Mexicans and several federal agents died to further gun control, and everyone should just STFU already since Obama is going to offer amnesty even if he has to break federal law.

  • The generation of computer models through input of empirical date is a scientific project?  Neither that method of computer generated model nor the physical  collection of supplementary data can characterize one as ‘real’, and the other as ‘unreal’ science.  If the conclusions of one model are later falsified by other collected data, then either the hypothesis or the previous method are false. You have chosen, for political purposes I assume (judging from your usage of the term ‘alarmist’), that the hypothesis of climate change has been  falsified—and not very scientifically at that.  In addition this data only is only pertinent to one geographical area, at one time—not the whole world, or even the whole of that particular continent.  There are still areas of the world where sea level is rising inexplicably.
    http://zeenews.india.com/news/world-environment-day/rising-sea-level-threatens-india-s-coastal-areas_779498.html
    Based on the current body of evidence, their scientists have chosen climate change as the most likely cause in India.  If the evidence points to another cause in the future, then the hypothesis will change—this distinguishes science from religion.

    • And here good folks we have the output of an early model of a device trying to pass the Turing test. Clearly an abysmal failure as it makes absolutely no sense and even a child can detect that it is not interacting with a functional human brain.

    • No dipshit, we brand them as alarmist because they were in fact alarmist.  OMG! We only have a few years left! Cities will flood! Polar bears will die! etc.

      • AND they boldly ADMIT they are alarmists.  They justify it by the usual cardinal bullshit of doing the greater good.

    • Are you just not very bright or is reading comprehension just not a skill you’ve acquired yet? Or both?

    • Hypothesis – and this hypothesis requires, conveniently, that the ‘West’ redistribute it’s wealth to the third world as quickly as possible while destroying their own collective economic and social infrastructures.  If the evidence points to another cause in the future, tough shit for the West.
       
      You don’t see that as a problem though do you, because you’re one of the special people who thinks their lives won’t change all that much.

      • …this hypothesis requires, conveniently, that the ‘West’ redistribute it’s wealth to the third world as quickly as possible while destroying their own collective economic and social infrastructures.  If the evidence points to another cause in the future, tough shit for the West.

        Considering how many of the alarmist activists were/are avowed socialists, that much is obvious.
        But you’re a Holocaust denier, a racist, a hatemonger, a greedhead for not accepting “settled science”.  So shut up and fork over your money and your liberty.

        You don’t see that as a problem though do you, because you’re one of the special people who thinks their lives won’t change all that much.

        Unless people who don’t appreciate being screwed decide to retaliate against Tad CF and his ilk.

      • They don’t even bother to hide it…
        “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
        Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC, WG-3

        • Geeze Doc, you say that like there’s a problem with that view or something.
           
          I love having these talks with folks who’s plan seems to follow the Underwear Gnome business model  –
          Step 1) Tax and regulate the West for Carbon Dioxide emissions, establish a new fiat market in Carbon credits, send the money to the third world.
          Step 2) ?
          Step 3) Global warming stops

    • What the heck are you babbling about?

  • “TW says:
    June 25, 2012 at 13:06

    You know people are weak when they resort to shouting down the opposition and name-calling.”

    Isn’t that how you started out in this thread?