Buy or Sell: There is no such thing as "Global Warming"?

Yes - keep telling that right wing lie... it keeps the billionaires polluting right down to the end. And then when you can't live anymore and are starving, they'll get on their jets and leave the country for someplace better. But you will have served the Rich - and isn't that what being a right winger is all about?

The North West Passage is open in the summer time for all shipping. How did all that ice melt? You can now book a cruise going through the NWP.

All right, I will bite. First, I do not think it is a liberal propaganda thing so much as a case of religious fervor, zealousness (the proponents simply do not recognize the religious aspect of their belief). I am what you certainly would call very liberal yet I find the idea of man-made global warming to be very poorly demonstrated. To be very brief (not possible, sorry), climate change is a natural condition of the earth system. There is extensive evidence of climate variation over the short term (decades to centuries) and long term (millions of years), both from the historical record and geological evidence. The AGW (man made warming) idea is based on the assumption that CO2 content will greatly affect global climate. The people that think this way have generated complicated computer programs (models) to try to demonstrate that this is true. A basic presumption in those models is that the presence of CO2 changes is an important cause of climate change, so one should not be surprised that the models actually show this to be true (it was the assumption).. It turns out that the models are the only true "proof" of man's role. There is nothing else that shows this. Not a single fact. So I must conclude that the proof is not demonstrated. In my extensive experience, computer modelling of complex systems are very unreliable in detail, although they are quite useful for general trends and increasing understanding of important factors to processes. One would think that the models used for climate behavior would also be viewed in this respect, given the enormous complexities involved in climate behavior. Instead, there is a strong propensity to take the output as a true indication of probable real behavior, and this is very much a leap of faith. I do not trust that leap, I do not have that faith (faith brings me back to religion, in case that wasn't obvious). Given that climate variation is a natural aspect of reality on earth, it strikes me that concluding that non-natural processes are important requires extraordinary proof. Instead, we get a proof that appears to be circular in concept. Not at all sufficient. I won't even go into the "bad" versus "good" argument. Let us just say that I would consider it wrong to assume that man happened to find himself at the ideal climate just at the same moment he discovered that climate is not immutable (not unchanging). If we were not at the ideal climate at that given time, then clearly there must be something better (more ideal), and the only way to get to that would be through change. I do not know what type of change would be better or worse for the planet and its life (I am not pretending godhood). But I doubt that the screaming about CO2 warming is as bad as it is claimed.

Its minus 22 outside what are you talking about