Follow up on the Stop Keystone March

Why do we dither and delay about climate when so much is at stake?

It is passing strange...we accepted Bush's WMD claims on his say so,without hardly a raised eyebrow and without much evidence.  Three trillion dollars later...

Yet, with mountains of evidence about climate, many are still "on the fence".  Is it merely idealogical, is it profit driven? You decide.

Virtually all of our (and the world's) most prestigious institutions of science (that have contributed so much to our well being) state clearly that recent climate change is real, human-made and catastrophic on a scale never seen by our civilization


U.S. Agency for International Development

United States Department of Agriculture

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

National Institute of Standards and Technology

United States Department of Defense

United States Department of Energy

National Institutes of Health

United States Department of State

United States Department of Transportation

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

National Center for Atmospheric Research

National Aeronautics & Space Administration

National Science Foundation

Smithsonian Institution

International Arctic Science Committee

Arctic Council

African Academy of Sciences

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences

and the Arts

Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias

Cameroon Academy of Sciences

Royal Society of Canada

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Académie des Sciences, France

Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina

of Germany

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy

Indian National Science Academy

Science Council of Japan

Kenya National Academy of Sciences

Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts,

Letters and Sciences

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academia Mexicana de Ciencias

Nigerian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society of New Zealand

Polish Academy of Sciences

Russian Academy of Sciences

l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques

du Sénégal

Academy of Science of South Africa

Sudan Academy of Sciences

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Tanzania Academy of Sciences

Turkish Academy of Sciences

Uganda National Academy of Sciences

The Royal Society of the United Kingdom

National Academy of Sciences, United States

Zambia Academy of Sciences

Zimbabwe Academy of Science

American Academy of Pediatrics

American Association for the Advancement

of Science

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society

American College of Preventive Medicine

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

American Medical Association

American Meteorological Society

American Physical Society

American Public Health Association

American Quaternary Association

American Institute of Biological Sciences

American Society of Agronomy

American Society for Microbiology

American Society of Plant Biologists

American Statistical Association

Association of Ecosystem Research Centers

Botanical Society of America

Crop Science Society of America

Ecological Society of America

Federation of American Scientists

Geological Society of America

National Association of Geoscience Teachers

Natural Science Collections Alliance

Organization of Biological Field Stations

Society of American Foresters

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

Society of Systematic Biologists

Soil Science Society of America

Australian Coral Reef Society

Australian Medical Association

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Engineers Australia

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

Geological Society of Australia

British Antarctic Survey

Institute of Biology, UK

Royal Meteorological Society, UK

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

European Physical Society

European Science Foundation

International Association for Great Lakes Research

International Union for Quaternary Research

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

World Federation of Public Health Associations

World Health Organization

World Meteorological Organization



Then why is there still resistance to a solution - when our grandchildren’s very lives, and our current prosperity is in the balance?


Here is a clue:


Secretive Donors Trust Pumps Far More Money Into Climate Denial And Inaction Than Kochs And Exxon Mobil Combined




"A secretive funding organization called Donors Trust spent the last decade funneling vast sums of money to an array of think tanks and activist groups, all dedicated to undermining the science of climate change and heading off the progress of climate policy. That’s according to reporting last week by The Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg

 By 2010, the dark money amounted to $118 millions distributed to 102 think tanks or action groups which have a record of denying the existence of a human factor in climate change, or opposing environmental regulations."


Their job is to delay action and increase profits by convincing  us there is no problem at all.  Most of their so-called research is funded by Big Oil and Coal.


Is it surprising with this much money behind it the doubt machine of the  contratrians would have such a reach?  Can anyone doubt a different  outcome if there were no denial machine?

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

not Carl Peterson lll March 21, 2013 at 07:33 AM
Some of the claims: Many people have been wondering what sort of response would be coming now that Steve has conclusively shown that the Marcott et al “hockey stick” is nothing more than an artifact of what appears to be the worst case of cherry picking ever. His latest post reveals how to ‘Hide the Decline’, Marcott style: By blanking out the three most recent values of their proxy #23, the earliest dated value was 10.93 BP (1939.07 AD). As a result, the MD01-2421+KNR02-06 alkenone series was excluded from the 1940 population. I am unable to locate any documented methodology that would lead to the blanking out of the last three values of this dataset. Nor am I presently aware of any rational basis for excluding the three most recent values. Since this series was strongly negative in the 20th century, its removal (together with the related removal of OCE326-GGC30 and the importation of medieval data) led to the closing uptick". For a whole refreshing look Here is a site of a guy who researched the whole idea. It is easy to read as it has no disrespect for anyone but just lays it all out there for you to see. If you could spend a little time on this one I would appreciate it. I have read many volumes of your links, reports, and have learned much more of the issue. http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm
Jan Freed March 21, 2013 at 12:44 PM
Climate is not political. It is actual fact. The rapid, massive melting of ancient Arctic Ice, ice formed before the LIA is a fact. It is warmer than before the LIA. If you can cite peer-reviewed evidence that supports laissez-faire, doing nothing, I will celebrate it. This is not a political debate. It is science. You like skepticism? Me too. But, only quality stuff, please. Peer-review of scientific papers, required by all real science publications, is tough well-established skepticism by experts in the field who know what they are talking about. They are not knee-jerk nay-sayers, not simply bloggers. But, they look at all aspects of the data in question, and will call it out if there is a problem. Otherwise, you have the junk skepticism of the denial community; foisted by lay bloggers and re-tread scientists, those with a heavy agenda, usually ideological or financial. Ignorance is one thing. I am glad to discuss the science. But, if you are a paid denier, you are a fossil ghoul, complicit with the deaths of 400,000 people per year, according to recent study by DARA. You are morally grotesque. Stalin would blush at your antics. Who to believe? Sen. James (Worm Tongue ) Inhofe and or the National Academy of Sciences? Not a tough choice for me.or financial.
Jan Freed March 21, 2013 at 03:01 PM
BTW, giggy. You never answered my question: Current warming is many times faster than the warming coming out if the LIA. Please explain how this could be . Why is it far faster now? If you can create a reasonable doubt that it is not due to AGW, I will reply. Otherwise, not.
not Carl Peterson lll March 22, 2013 at 06:05 AM
Mr. Freed, OH my god!! How do you do that? Really, It starts here as a question, and a nice exchange of information, but you suddenly jump into some of the most vile insults one can throw. What kind of a human being are you? You want to connect me with 400,000 deaths!!! What? i AM WORSE THAN STALIN NOW!!! Your quote from above: "fossil ghoul, complicit with the deaths of 400,000 people per year, according to recent study by DARA. You are morally grotesque". Good god man, get a grip on yourself. You started down this road with the last blog. I let all of it pass. I complemented you several times, because i sensed you needed that in order to continue communicating. Your lack of emotional maturity went from obvious to explicit. But your emotional baggage, and what ever you missed in childhood precede any logic thought you might have. I actually thought we were finally making headway with intellegent thought. I treaded lightly with your ego to keep you from calling me names and running away again. But the closer to truth it becomes the more it becomes a burden to hard for you to deal with. I am quite able, and have proven with success to many others what I have stated here. I will not attempt to explain it to a flailing, idiot. You, Jan Freed are the biggest unkind fool I have ever debated with in eighteen years of my internet use
not Carl Peterson lll March 22, 2013 at 07:32 AM
No, you never answered my question. REPEAT FROM MONDAY "You are aware that we have been coming out of the mini ice age. You are aware that Carbon levels rose hundreds of years after, not before, but after a rise in temps. Now when we simply put these two facts together. How can one conclude that a small amount of warming from the rise out of the mini ice age is because this time cause and effect are reversed?" WITHOUT CHANGING THE SUBJECT, OR CALLING ME A SOULESS MURDERER WORSE THAN STALIN..........simply answer.
not Carl Peterson lll March 22, 2013 at 08:02 AM
not Carl Peterson lll March 23, 2013 at 06:41 AM
LADY'S AND GENTLEMEN, JAN FREED HAS ONCE AGAIN COME FULL CIRCLE. As he has always done, when he does not know, and can not debate the facts he attacks and runs. He has never been able back up a single statement, or been able to asnwer a question. As we get closer to a real discussion, he realizes he may have to alter his prejudiced beliefs, the pain is just too much. Then he calls me a murder worse than Stalin!. Wow, even for an emotional driven , demagog, this is a new low. Typical When they can't discuss the issue, they call you evil, and run. His only knowledge is attaching names of organizations, and some wild grand ideas of death and destruction. Global warming? An extreme claim needs extreme explanaition. On Monday I simply asked the following: You are aware that we have been coming out of the mini ice age. You are aware that Carbon levels rose hundreds of years after, not before, but after a rise in temps. Now when we simply put these two facts together. How can one conclude that a small amount of warming from the rise out of the mini ice age is because this time cause and effect are reversed? He not only refuses to answer, he now expects me to answer HIS far out claim by the infamous liar of the hockeystickgate, Michael Mann. No Freed, You are making the claim. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Can you simply answer the question I posed?
Jan Freed May 31, 2013 at 07:57 PM
First of all, sincere skepticism is not evil. But, if it was sincere you would answer your own questions by doing a little reading from non-denier sources. Risking the earth for a few lousy bucks IS evil. Stalin killed for power; paid deniers encourage indifference to death/destruction for money; big difference.. What is YOUR motivation? The questions: So, why the very sudden and steep increase in temperatures after LIA? The skeptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change. Warming is more rapid now than right after the LIA. Also, CO2 increases the warming as it is driven out of the ocean. First warming, say from orbital changes, then CO2 driven from the ocean, then more CO2 driven warming. But, right now, the most significant driver of CC is CO2, which matches quite closely the increases in global temperatures in both ocean and atmosphere. No other driver: the sun, orbital changes, cosmic rays, CFC's can explain it. PLUS, CO2 is a known GHG, so why would it not cause warming. If you are truly sincere you would look up the evidence before throwing out a challenge. Is that enough answer for you?
not Carl Peterson lll June 01, 2013 at 03:03 AM
So, after two and a half months, a response that happens to come at the same time your blog posts in the Altadena Patch. Is this a red herring, or was I simply on your mind. Actually I appreciate the dialog. This is the first response that actually discusses points, and challenges me. I have an idea. I will give you a serious answer to your post today. No hyperbole. No B.S. Then you do the same. Lets either leave it in this blog spot, or our personal email accounts if you like. I will leave you alone on your new blog posts. No reason to dog you around. That was never my original intention. We may both be right and wrong about some of this subject. I am willing to listen. How say you?
Jan Freed June 01, 2013 at 08:22 AM
Buz, I noticed you avoided answering the many points I made in my last post and also avoided answering the questions I have been asking you in this blog. Nor do you address the long list of scientific organizations consisting of thousands of refereed climate scientists who I suspect know full well of the LIA and its causes. So, when you specifically address these points, we can proceed.
not Carl Peterson lll June 01, 2013 at 05:47 PM
Please define the time periods for LIA Are you using LIA as Little ice age, or last ice age? What is your time reference for: "now" " Warming is more rapid now than right after the LIA".
Jan Freed June 01, 2013 at 05:50 PM
The answers can be found on a graph from http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm "now" means since 1970 or so.
not Carl Peterson lll June 02, 2013 at 04:09 AM
I will probably be able to read the material tomorrow, Sunday. As for my motive? Actually your hinting of me being a "paid denier" is almost a back door compliment. It's better than being accused of not knowing anything. However, I would feel the same as you, that if one is paid, or has bad motives to spread what you feel is misinformation, I would not think very kindly of them as well. As I have always been, my motives are purely from my experience reading and studying, and only want to do what I see as right for everyone. I will stand up for truth and worthy causes. It's in my DNA.
not Carl Peterson lll June 02, 2013 at 07:58 PM
You stated on several occasions That temps are rising faster than the earlier times coming out of the last ice age. "recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change. Warming is more rapid now than right after the LIA." I read your link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm !) I did not see any mention of the temps rising faster now 2) Look at the time periods of all of the charts. Notice that they will end charting around 1998. This is not an accident, nor just needing to update. Warming has stopped since 1998, and they don't know what to do about that. This is now common knowledge. Some try to explain it. But it is clear. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416 http://drtimball.com/2012/current-climate-changes-are-normal-its-time-the-media-got-the-story-correct/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/ Going further the "skeptical scientist" site concludes: "Can We Draw a Conclusion? In truth, not really" They then go on to claim the warming has no real answer so it must be human. Well, that same speculation now needs to answer why their is not warming now. 3) one chart shows what I expressed months ago, that the method of calculating warming is not consistent. It is the first chart in the intermediate page of your link. The method changed when the method used before did not show warming anymore. I could go on with great detail but that would take focus away from the point I am expressing here. Their is not only no faster warming, it is showing nothing since 1998, and alarmists on this site will not show the data since 1998.
Jan Freed June 03, 2013 at 02:18 AM
Climate has warmed faster in the last few decades than right after the LIA. You deny that? Why? I ask again. A cold beer would warm faster when first removed from the fridge and more slowly as it neared room temperature, and the differences were much less than at first. Just the opposite has occurred, with faster warming from the 50's on, hundreds of years after the LIA. Why? BTW: the earth's climate may be warming more slowly as trapped heat goes into the ocean, but it is still warming and nothing to celebrate or to ignore, as the deniers would like. As someone commented in the Forbes link you supplied, "Suggestions that global warming has stalled are a “diversionary tactic” from “deniers” who want the public to be confused over climate change, according to the world’s best-known climate scientist. Prof James Hansen, who first alerted the world to climate change in 1988, said on Friday: “It is not true that the temperature has not changed in the two decades.” So reads the lead paragraph of Damian Carrington’s article, “Global warming has not stalled, insists world’s best-known climate scientist” published by the Guardian on May 17, 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/17/global-warming-not-stalled-climate OK; Here is a bet for you Buz, or for your friends! Pick a month, say next August. I will bet $10,000 the average temperature will be warmer than the average August in the 20th Ce. Should be an even 50-50 bet, right, in a stable climate? But, I will give you TWO to one, my $10,000 against your $5,000 that next August will be warmer than average. What do you say? You have the courage of your convictions that the climate isn't going to be warmer, and that at last things are back to normal?
not Carl Peterson lll June 03, 2013 at 03:09 AM
Your claim is that temps are rising faster now, "since around the seventies" I am more than willing to look directly at it. Show me exactly what that rise is for all the time period you are referring to so I may be able to see what you mean. A bet on the weather? Ha, Ha...And you want it bet against the average of from 1900-2,000....sure I will bet it will be warmer this august as well. Lets just get real specific here. The exact temps, and the method of measuring. Look, the problem for both of us is anyone from either side can publish some data for cherry-picked times, areas of the globe, and methods of measuring. I have spent much time in the past to work beyond claims of both sides to see what is real, and what is not. So as simple as this should be to find.....you made the claim, simply show me what EXACTLY to look at. Not an opinion, But the actual data/chart etc.
not Carl Peterson lll June 03, 2013 at 03:14 AM
And not to cloud the issue, but just for fun: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Jan Freed June 03, 2013 at 09:03 AM
"sure I will bet it will be warmer this august as well" Then what is the issue? You agree that the climate is warming, so...? You ask, how do I know it is not "recovering" from LIA? You have not convinced me of that. You ask for: Graph of rapid increases in temperatures in the last few decades: There are many such graphs. Example: From NASA (they put a RV sized Curiosity on Mars, remember?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming They state "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.[3][4][5][6] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.[7][A " They, at NASA, don't mention the cause of the increase was "recovering" from the LIA, which dipped only .6 deg C. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/littleiceage.pdf We have gone higher than that (.8 deg)
Jan Freed June 03, 2013 at 09:32 AM
Another graph showing rapid recent temperature rise. Not a gradual "recovering" from the LIA. Also, here you find explanation of causes and why LIA doesn't get skeptics off the hook. http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg
Jan Freed June 03, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Another question Buz: In an earlier post you claim "Warming has stopped since 1998", yet you also say " I will bet it will be warmer this august as well" Do you see a contradiction in these two statements of yours?
not Carl Peterson lll June 04, 2013 at 04:01 AM
You are joking about the bet I presume. But just in case... You want me to bet that one particular month of this year will not be any warmer than an average of the century from 1900-2000. And somehow this has anything to do with 1998 to now...? After searching I found the graph. http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg This is an old chart that used others work, and if I remember, his own( Rob Wilson's) black line that continues to the end. Do you have the raw data that was used for Wilsons line? . I spent quite a while looking for the data. The only thing I saw was he decided to randomly pick 1,000 bits of measurements and compute that. It also has Michael Mann's hockey stick. Now Mr. Freed, by now you are fully aware of this hockeystick problem, right? I do not need to push that issue, as long as you are aware of it. If you are not there yet, simply look around. It is not being pushed anymore. This is an old chart, with questionable sources. This chart was made about 15 years ago, and the only line that extends is his. Wikipedia has the same chart, and explains that the only extension since 1996 was single measurement in 2004. Therefore the line is not really a line. Another caveat to note: "resolution of the reconstruction is averaged into 100-year segments, which means yearly or every-decade variability fails to show up in the new study. There could have been a period sometime in the past 11,000 years that was warmer than today, but if so it wasn’t sustained for at least 100 years" The quote from wiki: The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 Do you have something that has been made in the last few years.
Jan Freed June 04, 2013 at 10:08 AM
Yet more distraction, Buz. Back to the Hockey Stick canard, right? You have yet to answer either question I have asked several times. I have other fish to fry, so, I must leave off this conversation.
Jan Freed June 04, 2013 at 10:41 AM
Canary isle shows climate change is real http://www.smh.com.au/comment/canary-isle-shows-climate-change-is-real-20130603-2nm5r.html "Climate change is real in our places," Rimeta Beniamina, a government MP and vice-chairman of his parliament's climate change committee, told me, expressing surprise at what was going on in the chamber a few metres away. "A few years ago it was not taken very seriously. But now quite a few villages are experiencing hardship. Beaches are eroding, houses are falling down, crops are damaged and livelihoods are destroyed. "The intrusion of salt water is very evident. The sea level may be rising millimetres a year, but it is still rising. The strong winds and rising tides are the worst part. Once the salt water enters the land, that's it. Trees are falling along the coast, crops dying, pigs and chickens are affected."
not Carl Peterson lll June 04, 2013 at 06:05 PM
We are still on the first Statement of yours that you made, and asked me to answer. You stated that temps are rising faster than coming out of the LIA. You asked me to prove a negative. I asked for clarification. You provided a graph. Upon looking at it, I gave you some information I read about that graph. It basically was old work from others up until around 1998. Then it had only his black line with one reading of something from 2004. It also had Manns hockeystick. I gave you the preceding information that zeroed in on the graph that you gave. However you call clarification as "a distraction". Following this you wrote about sea levels in the canary Islands. Lets look clearly where this is: You claim that AGW is the main driver of global warming. That temps are rising faster than when the LIA ended. You not only have not substantiated that claim, even if it were true, the speed of any rise or fall in some temps does not prove the cause of the changes. So once again, all I am asking is for clarification of your statement. What temps, during what time periods, and follow through---beyond 1998---to 2012, or at least 2011. Distraction? I am willing to look at anything on this exact issue you stated. I suggest the following. Neither of us are experts Neither of us will get anything about this 100% correct We are both subject to what we find on the internet. Not being able to prove something by either of us is no proof of anything. You can relax. I am not going to pounce on you, as long as we have intellectual honesty, things can be learned. If you do not have any way to back up your claim it is O.K. Something to think about... In order to have the opinions I do, I had to read much from both sides. Most of the time, statements made by alarmists have a counter point. I then look for why that counter-point is wrong. That is what it takes to sift out the garbage from both sides. It took a couple hundred hours before it started to gel. I will leave it up to you to clarify, and back up your claim, or make a different point that proves AGW, or drop it all together.
not Carl Peterson lll June 04, 2013 at 11:17 PM
This started with working on your claim that warming is faster now than in the past, leaving the LIA. You claimed it so, and asked me to explain how can that be. Although you made the claim you want the burden of proof on me. Well O,K, I asked for clarification of time periods, and the exact measurements of temps. I looked at the graph, and peeled back some of the layers. Your evidence is one black line from Rob Wilson overlaid by others. It looks like the only point after 1998 was one measurement in 2004 and is self-described below the graph as a point not a real line. You said many graphs are available, but you have linked one that basically stops like the rest of them in 1998, and furthermore has the hockey stick included. If there are many charts/graphs, then do you have one that is not 15 years old Asking for clarification of a statement, then researching data is not a distraction for anyone zeroing in on the facts. So, we are still at the beginning. You stated that GW is speeding up. Give me one of the "many Graphs". Your last entries you are about to cut and run without explaining the parameters of your argument, which is then followed up with anecdotal stories about the Canary islands. I am still here, focused, on the first point, ready to look, and read.
not Carl Peterson lll June 04, 2013 at 11:28 PM
If you do not have any other charts, or want to back off from this point, I will not jump on you. Neither of us are all knowing. Both of us are subject to what we will find on the internet, and subject to our own personal beliefs. If one of us does not have knowledge of something, or get it wrong, it does not mean our point of view is wrong, or that we as a person is wrong. So, like I say, if you want to skip this, go on to another point, or drop this for a while, or forever, I will leave it up to you. I am good either way, and will not jump on you either way you decide. One other idea that might be interesting is a whole different way. If you want someone to bounce arguments off, so you can make your points better with others..... ask me what I have read. If I am able, I will respond in a non debate way, as simply a transfer of information, that you can do what you want with.
not Carl Peterson lll June 06, 2013 at 03:21 AM
I am still here, open minded, and waiting for you to show me what I have to argue against. Still focused on the statement you started. The warming from your time periods, "since the LIA." A chart that is not 15 years old. If you insist the hockey stick is valid, and that is all you can do, I will look, and explain by those on your side of the aisle what they now openly agree as not correct. Most of the others who can not bring themselves to acknowledge the hoickeystick problem quietly just stopped usung it. This is very old news.
not Carl Peterson lll June 07, 2013 at 02:16 AM
O.K. so you had to leave again. I have something that you can look at..... I have one of the best links in the world. This has the whole issue on one giant timeline poster. Read it, and see for yourself if it has truth or not. Although I have not read every word, I have not found fault yet. This way you can see what the opposing views are without having to air it out here. If you only read one thing your whole life that has the other point of view, this is it. http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/climategate-30-year-timeline/
not Carl Peterson lll June 15, 2013 at 03:59 AM
The IPCC changed history. first chart 1990, second chart 2010. http://a-sceptical-mind.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Comparison-charts.jpg when you find who, and how they changed history....you will know
not Carl Peterson lll September 16, 2013 at 12:21 AM
And now Jan Freed, Merry Christmas! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »