Global Warming, Climate Change, by whichever name; among scientists studying the Earth’s warming climate, the “debate” has been over for years… it’s there and it’s ours. The ongoing noise about whether climate change (the term climate scientists’ use instead of the newsies’ more provocative “global warming”) is real, and whether if it is real, it’s anthropogenic, is strictly a political and not a scientific discussion.  That discussion for climate scientists is, in the words of Shakespeare, “Sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
The East Coast of the USA has been pummeled by blizzards of late, prompting derision of climate change in the public discourse, but those events simply reflect the variability of the season… and the effects of climate change. Warmth increases atmospheric moisture, and in the cold of winter increased moisture means more snow.
Recently published information has shown that, not only does climate change exist, the pace is quickening. Worldwide, the first decade of the 21<sup>st</sup> century was the warmest on record. The year 2010, which should have been a cool year because of a strong summer La Nina, is in a statistical tie for the warmest year since record-keeping began... and that year was 2005.
The Arctic sea-ice coverage, both in area and in age, is trending toward summer zero. The North Atlantic has warmed 3.5 degrees F in the past century, a result of Arctic temperature amplification, and “Air temperatures in Greenland have risen roughly 7 degrees F in the past several decades,” according to scientists. Global warming hockey stick graphs are back in fashion.
This rapid and recent rise in global temperature is driven by a thirty percent increase in CO2, a process that normally takes thousands of years, but has now occurred within the last hundred years. Climate modeling and statistical analysis show that the rise in temperature over the past couple of hundred years coincides with a rise in human activities that produce statistically significant increases in carbon dioxide (CO2). The industrial revolution was built on the back of “fossil fuels.”
Fossil fuel, as its name implies, is fuel made from ancient life. The ‘fossilization’ of organic material reduces it to its most basic element… carbon. Burning fossil fuels doesn’t destroy carbon, it’s a chemical change that releases carbon in staggering amounts, in the form of CO2. The reality is that CO2 is the greenhouse gas that provides global warming its greatest impetus, making an immediate decrease in the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere of paramount importance… a most costly business.
And there it stands. Science drives the climate change/global warming advocates who would see the basis of industry and transportation change from carbon-based fossil fuels immediately. Money drives the denialist movement, because money depends on slow and incremental change that produces increases in production and decreases in cost… something a rapid change in the fuels of industry can never do.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 82
Unfortunately it was just a more literate version of the same old falsehoods and paranoias. None of which rebuts anything in Chuck's post, or for that matter even addresses his post at all. Perhaps you should have written your own post instead.
But then just to drive home the point that you are simply repeating the same memes, you end by citing some blogger's article about Al Gore. Seriously?
Who the heck is Harold Ambler? Not a climate scientist. But he does mime the same old dusty denialist talking points while drawing on the tired old Pavlovian drool promoter of dropping Al Gore's name, a man who is irrelevant to any discussion of the science.
True, you never denied outright that it is a "component," you merely minimized it in favor of other factors, thus misrepresenting its contribution. Your view, of course, is contrary to the knowledge base of climate research. When your entire comment is taken in context it is clear that you offer just a more passively stated denial of the science, while denigrating the entire climate science community as a mechanism to diminish their consensus (which here again you demean as merely some sort of opinion of a panel of experts, ignoring the fact that the consensus is based on tens of thousands of peer reviewed publications from thousands of scientists all over the world over many decades).
The use of the word, hoax, is your own creation as it always has been.
The word hoax in this context is a denialist term. I most certainly didn't invent it. Though I'm curious as to your history given that you suggest that it is my own creation "as it always has been," which implies either that you are (not) familiar with my writing on this site or that you merely threw it out there as a platitude to avoid taking responsibility for the sum meaning of your full comment.
You cannot make the distinction in what I say because you are less aware of your own thought process than you give yourself credit for.
I'm actually quite aware of my own thought processes, and am fascinated by the thought processes of others. Yours, for example. How is it that you came to these conclusions that are quite clearly in contrast to established scientific consensus?
Restate what needs to be rebutted in Chuck's post.
Did you not read his post? Or did you just feel the need to start a completely unrelated discussion? Either way, since you didn't address anything in his post that is why I suggested that your comment might have been more appropriate as a post of your own. That way you could more fully explore your views without taking Chuck's post off on some tangential incongruence.
Memes? Well your new age philosophy really does show. Isn't that just another word for ideas?
New age? As in, continuing to learn throughout ones life? Sure, it's a relatively new word, like "internet." And no, it isn't just another word for ideas, but hey, close enough since it isn't really relevant to the discussion.
What does it matter who Harold Ambler is?
To be honest, it's unclear why you felt the need to include the link to his article since it didn't support your case at all (though perhaps it epitomized the same level of veracity of your case).
Are you a climate scientist? Is Chuck a climate scientist? Who here is climate scientist?
You seem to have missed the point. Chuck presented information from climate scientists. He isn't offering his opinion; he is presenting the case of scientists who study the science. You on the other hand, as not a climate scientist, seem to be taking it upon yourself to dismiss the body of climate research coming from these scientists. On what basis? Not science certainly, as all the actual science you mentioned in your comment supports the conclusion that climate scientists have reached. Then you merely dismiss the science away in favor of the usual non-science talking points about taking away rights and draconian control (neither of which has anything to do with science).
Again, no one here is denying climate change. That is your invention to trap others in a syllogism.
Again, read my comment above about your passive-aggressive denialism. Please be honest in your writing. As for syllogism, you might want to look that up and then explain how my acknowledgment of your clear use of denialist talking points is somehow "trapping" you "in a syllogism."
It might serve you well to root out the source of your insecurities.
I'm rather secure in my knowledge, thank you. Perhaps you should spend some time reading the science and stay away from non-scientists writing the usual talking points on an online blog.
BTW, Kuhn wasn't necessarily entirely right in his views. After all he was just one opinion and he seems to have focused primarily on human motives and simply ignored the influence of technological advancement and the political power of the Church (e.g., with respect to Copernicus and Galileo). And your interpretation of what Kuhn said isn't necessarily right either. Your application of it, or perhaps more accurately your misapplication of it, is quite revealing to say the least.
So you agree with the scientific consensus of climate scientists, i.e., that the fact that the planet is warming is unequivocal and that it is very highly likely (i.e., >90% as of 4 years ago, more like 98%+ now) that the reason is human activity. Good.
That is the whole basis for my asking one simple question: “What is the difference in percentage of the two sources as contributory to ocean chemistry and atmospheric composition?”
Well, given that you now acknowledge that you do not deny the scientific consensus of climate scientists, you should understand the answer to that question.
Could this not be answered,...
You imply it hasn't been answered. I know you admitted not being a climate scientist, but since you seem fit to question them perhaps you could summarize what the state-of-the-science is on this particular component? Clearly you must understand the scientific consensus before you can question it.
As you believe, we did, after all, cause climate change. So if we caused it, we should be able to rectify it.
Did you look up syllogism? Consider the fact that climate change is science. Rectifying it, however, requires policy action. Policy action is subject to the vagaries of politics, which has nothing to do with the science. In short, even though we pretty much know what has to be done, both the exact mechanism of implementation and getting policy-makers to actually make policy is a whole other animal.
Likewise, I believe that the transition in energy production will occur not as a consequence of addressing climate change in itself but rather for the reason of depletion of resources. It is scarcity that drives the transition.
Clearly there will have to be an economic incentive to shift to renewable and sustainable energy sources. And clearly we need to do it for reasons that have nothing to do with climate change. But just as clearly we need to do it because of climate change. What is holding us back? Perhaps it is the rather silly habit of screaming about having our freedoms taken away whenever someone actually tries to take responsibility for our actions. And perhaps it is the hypocrisy of begging for subsidies for technologies we want to move away from (and for which the companies receiving have no need at all) rather than incentivizing renewable technologies. To suggest that we simply wait until there is nothing left before rushing to catch up to the Chinese is rather un-innovative.
You base everything on an appeal to authority.
Umm, no. Nice try though. I see this particular meme (ouch, that word again) whenever people don't have a logical leg to stand on.
Here, the orthodox view is framed as being represented in the consensus of the IPCC while anything other is considered unorthodox and thus heretical.
See, here is the crux of the problem. You presume that the scientific consensus based on decades of science is equal to what you can get off some non-science blog supported by industry lobbyists trying to protect their corporate members from regulation. That really is rather silly. It's akin to giving equal weight to the drunk guy on the park bench screaming "It's the Sun Stupid," and the entire body of climate science. Sorry, but real science is required to make judgments about science.
I could delve into the nature of truth and into the sociological aspect of uncritical reliance on science as the sole and all-embracing source of cognition for mankind, i.e., religion but why bother?
That is one of the silliest platitudes I've seen on Gather. Best way to completely erase any credibility you thought you had is to start blathering about science being a religion (second best way is to mention Al Gore, and you already did that). It just demonstrates that you don't really care about facts, you just like to hear yourself talk.
Again, there is no dismissal.
Bull. You've spent the whole comment, and the ones before it, rationalizing how you can dismiss the entire body of climate science.
And, I happen to believe that Kuhn’s message resonates with this issue as well.
I'm sure you do. But then your interpretation of Kuhn may not actually be what Kuhn meant.
No. Are you? Or was that a rhetorical question?
If not then why do you persist in repeatedly framing the issue as one of rejection versus acceptance?
So you do acknowledge that climate scientists, the ones who actually study climate, are close to unanimous in their scientific consensus that the planet is warming and that human activity is the reason. Why can't you just say that?
Do you understand the meaning of presupposition?
Yes. Oh, was that another rhetorical question?
You did not answer the question of anthropogenic versus natural causes because you have nothing of substance to contribute to the issue. Perhaps you could summarize the state of the science concerning the differentiation between the two sources. Oh that’s right; you can only parrot what others tell you.
You seem confused. You don't actually know the science. Ergo, your opinion on anthropogenic versus natural is pretty much uninformed by definition. So your pretense of knowing more than climate scientists on this issue is, well, pretense. As for being a parrot, why exactly did you link to an article about Al Gore? And why do you persist in questioning the anthropogenetic versus natural components as if you have some knowledge on the topic that surpasses those people who actually study it?
This statement is false in its overgeneralization but not false in certain specifics.
Sorry, you are incorrect. The science has nothing to do with the politics. Surely the science should inform policy-making, but it seems clear that politics determines whether we do anything at all or not. Meanwhile, the science is the science. The fact that you insinuate it is otherwise is also politics, in particular your need to minimize the credibility of the science so that you feel confident denying it. It's a common tactic. Rather transparent, but common.
Since the problem of understanding the exact mechanism of climate change is presumed to be one of anthropogenic inducement then the issue cannot be resolved if other factors beyond our control play as significant a part in global dynamics.
False. By definition, we obviously cannot control "other factors beyond our control." But I don't believe anyone is suggesting (in a serious way) that we start plugging volcanoes (or conversely, stimulating them). What we are talking about is the man-made part, the part that we can have some control over. Which, of course, is the part that is the primary driver of our current global warming. No matter how much you attempt to minimize that component, it is in fact the primary driver.
You can denigrate the importance of our current system of classical liberalism but what other form of political structure do you advocate in replacement?
I never said we should change our political structure. In fact, I think our country is the best place on earth.
It appears evident by your thinking that you are a believer in the Rousseauian concept of the general will where you and your kind represent the arbiters of what remains to be done. Again, this is not democracy as we know it but rather a form of totalitarian democracy.
The fact that this rather bizarre notion "appears evident" to you is perhaps why you have pretty much everything else confused as well. But hey, I understand that is part of the schtick, to label others as you need to in order to rationalize your own factual and logical fallacies.
This is truly amazing, an appeal to patriotism and even that after you nearly condemn our current system. You are really no different from that to which you profess scorn.
You have devolved into saying rather silly things (er, sillier things). I neither made "an appeal to patriotism" nor "nearly condemn[ed] our current system." The fact that you interpreted my simple statement in that way again provides insight into your way of thinking. My statement was addressing your suggestion that we simply wait until "scarcity drives the transition." That strategy is neither innovative nor economically realistic. We have always provided incentives to companies so they can invest in new technologies. Otherwise they would have to take significant risk investing in things that may never come to fruition, something that in this age of publicly traded companies would never be allowed by shareholders making decisions based on quarterly profit reports. Meanwhile, for various reasons China is going gung-ho developing new renewable technologies that they will then sell to the world. By fighting ourselves the US has given a big boost to the Chinese economy. Not very smart. Of course, you missed all that economic stuff because you were wrapped in your political ideology. Which explains your pretenses and misunderstanding of the science.
You seem to stuck on that idea. Seems you’re not even conscious of the influence of memes in your own thinking.
Actually, I'm quite conscious of everything I say. Are you conscious of why you cited some random article that argued against Al Gore and repeated the usual talking points, most of which have no merit in any sense of the word?
Nope, you misunderstood everything I’ve said but I don’t blame you.
You just did. Despite the fact that I really haven't misunderstood anything that you have said. I've just cut through the BS.
Tell me all about real science, little man.
Ooh. Use of a diminutive in an attempt to "bring me down to size." Another rather transparent and yet all too common tactic.
That word is more indicative of your tactics.
Actually, it's more indicative of your BS. Seriously, just look at what you have written.
No, you persistently misrepresent what I say.
No, not at all. Again, just cutting through the BS.
It is you who spent the entire time rationalizing the supposed superiority of your point of view.
Nope. I haven't offered a point of view on the issue. That's what the people who study climate have done. And with tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers by thousands of scientists from all over the world over many decades (and with basic principles going back over 200 years), the data are pretty persuasive.
As far as Kuhn, you cannot even succinctly describe his thesis.
Why would I even need to? His thesis isn't particularly relevant, either his version or your version. You raised him up on a pedestal in an effort to provide some false credibility for your predetermined narrative. Perhaps you should have spent more time on actual climate science rather than Kuhn's philosophical version of science in general.
In the end, your opinion (or mine or Kuhn's for that matter) isn't really relevant. The data tell us what is happening. And the data tell us unequivocally that the planet is warming and that it is virtually certain to be due to our activities, primarily CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions and the deforestation and other activities that exacerbate it.
Extremes of precipitation and drought were predicted by climatologists as an aspect of global warming. Individual events of such a nature do not bear a big red label that says "this was caused by climate change" - but when such events of several inches of rain falling in a single hour happen in several places without a hurricane present to cause them, you have to wonder.
That pretty much sums it up.
Of course, the dishonest people will be here to deny everything, provide blogger misrepresentations, and demonstrate beyond a doubt how completely lacking in critical thinking are they.
Dont follow the mainscream media anymore because the Net should be a learning tool, not an opinion search engine. This sewer of untreated information can lead to the truth or serve as a platter for your built in dogma.
System Change, not Climate Change.
Birth Control, not Climate Control.
YOU faded remaining Doomers and Grim reapers of trailer park intellectualism, deny ancient climate because you say "this" warming has never happened before. Now who’s the neocon?
You faded believers are dragging environmentalism and progressivism down the wrong roads and history is already dealing with you modern day witch burners.
What DID the Scientists agree on?:
-the effects will range from nothing to unstoppable warming.
That's it. It's a free pass for lab coat consultants and disco scientists. Just look at yourselves. You bow to a fat politician promising to lower the seas and make the weather colder. Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 24 years of climate control instead of needed population control. Nice job. This was our Iraq War.
We told the world to save the planet.
SAVE THE PLANET? If ever there was fear mongering!
It makes me wonder who the real neocons of fear and lies really were. Was it us?
Or how is it they tell us our emissions and contributions of the gasses have dropped worldwide but CO2 levels worldwide keep rising at "alarming" rates?
How is that there are countless thousands of more scientists than protestors? Shouldn’t' they be marching too to fill the gap of falling support for climate change?
Scientists polluted the planet with their chemicals and produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemicals, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, cluster bombs, strip mining technology, Y2K, Y2Kyoto, deep sea drilling technology and now climate change.
The temperatures they were quoting were influenced by location, air conditioners, brick, concrete, and reflective wind from industry. NOAA admitted that the temperatures they quoted were "adjusted" as they saw fit.
Anything they say as truth based on these numbers are worthless. They falsified documents and committed the worst crime in science....
~M
False.
Fruits of actual thought? Or do you just parrot the nonsense found in the blogosphere?
That's his schtick. He says something without merit and then never defends it. That way he can run off and make believe he made a point when in fact he just looked as silly as he does in his icon photo.
David...as usual, you are the typical liberal with your personal attacks. Dont hate me because I hammer your posts with truth which proves you wrong.
PICTURES OF BAD STATIONS:
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/noaas-jan-jun-2010-warmest-ever-missing-data-false-impressions/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/12/art-horn-a-remarkable-statement-from-noaa/
From Previous Time Periods....it was hotter than now:
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec09/lec9.htm
GW is not man made:
http://www.nationscrier.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1:climate-change-natural-or-human-causes&catid=2:current-events
www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/
originals/surface_temp.pdf
screw it. I have to go eat.
~M
I'm not gonna bother with the rest of what are obviously blogs-o'-bias.
Oh, don't forget citing sppi, another denialist blog created by a non-scientist and funded by the denialist industry and that features - get this - the fake Lord Monckton's fake science, fake graphs, fake Lordship, fake emblems, and admitted lying about the IPCC data that he manipulated to create his fake graphs.
So you are citing anonymous bloggers on industry-supported non-science blogs? Those are you sources?
Proof that you choose to be intentionally so uninformed and disinformed
What an embarrassment.
I have a swap cooler that cools my house just by evaporation. Evaporation cools the surounding area!!!
Your science cant be replicated, therefore it is obsolete.
~M
False. No basis in fact. At all. Sorry.
Since you are now attacking actual climate scientists it is clear that you acknowledge WUWT and your other blogs are completely biased and completely dishonest non-science sites mostly written by anonymous authors and relying on the fake Lord Monckton's fake graphs. Thank you for admitting that your sources are worthless non-science.
All the rest of what you want to prove to me is based on bunk science.
False. All of the relevant and valid science from all of the researchers from all of the peer-reviewed publications make up the totality of the science, and that science overwhelmingly led to the conclusion that the planet is warming and human activity is the reason. Facts are facts. And those are the facts.
Your science cant be replicated, therefore it is obsolete.
False. And in that one short sentence you somehow managed to exhibit both factual inaccuracy and several logical fallacies. So much for critical thinking.
Sorry, but you don't get to just rattle off meaningless talking points garnered from anonymous bloggers citing other anonymous bloggers posted on a blog run by a non-scientist ex-TV weatherman supported by free market lobbying groups. Science requires actual research and actual peer-review and actual publication.
Ask yourself why you rely on anonymous bloggers for science but attack the veracity of actual working and researching climate scientists. Oh right, because you don't actually want the science.
If you want to stop wasting our time with your irrelevant and many times debunked rantings, get a selection here.
If you want actual science knowledge, get it here.
Good post.
The dead theory has virtually been left with public research holding the empty bag of "climate crisis." It's over. The deniers have won and you remaining misery lovers are riding it's slow funeral procession, crying like a lonely widow. You remaining doomers are the fossils of CO2 environMENALism and now just fodder for jokes in the real world. Now you remaining believers of misery look like the last fella EVER, to show up to the party still dressed in Disco duds.
System Change, not climate change.
Love, not windmills and chants of THE END IS NEAR!
LABCOAT CONSULTANT says: "Ahha............. ya! Sure!”
very pathetic.
10,000 years ago my land was under 100 feet of ice. The current climate data of doom started at the end of what scientists admit was a mini-ice age and the high priests of climatology have been caught cooking the books. The debate is indeed over. We filed global warming along with big foot, UFOs, ghosts, and spontaneous human combustion. Only the wide eyeds continue to preach it.
Science is based off of facts not "adustments".
~M
Here is MORE proof that our global temperature is VERY susceptable to change. Open your EYES!!! The truth is in front of you!
Actually the debate on what caused the ice age isn't over. It's still a scientific mystery. And technically the earth is still in an ice age and is cooler than the perceived historical average. I with you in terms of eliminating pollution though Rude.
""how they keep trying to revive the movement after such a bitter bust of half truths and bunk science. ""
True Texas. Any time a new study questions the established dogma, the author and finding are instantly attacked and ridiculed. Man caused global warming has become a faith rather than a science.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110114155336
.htm
Gee, let's forget science and go with the denialist blogs. Deny, Deny, DENY and in an act of blatant hypocrisy, accuse them of refusing to accept reality.
For one of those that has accepted climate change for years, I am not sure what the point is to the article. If it is all political then why not change the message because obviously the current one hasn't change the public actions for years?
I am curious, and maybe you or a commentor can help me understand. As best I can tell all the effort is toward reducing the current level of emmisions. By some accounts that at the current rate of change the most optimistic scenarios it is already too late. My wonder is about why we don't hear more about how nature sequestered the carbon and what we can do to either emmulate nature or to facilitate nature doing that to the carbon that has already been released.
By the way since the "scientists" know how molecules at the ppm level are changing the global climate, can you direct meto where I can read about what triggers the El Ninas and La Ninas? They seem to regularly overwhelm the climate change models.
In the words of Climate Scientist Judith Curry, who is at the forefront of this issue.
"No one really believes that the “science is settled” or that “the debate is over.” Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements."
People like Chuck have become the religious flatearthers.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/towards_rebuilding_trust.html
Nowhere does she say g warming is a hoax, she calls for more transparency. I am sure it was written BEFORE the investigation into what the dinalist cult called "climategate"
What I got from her essay is that scientists do NOT take the time to explain to the denialists about G warming. Kind of like when an idiot says "why don't we fly off into space when the world turns at night and we are upside down"
For a scientist, she can't recognize people who DO NOT want the truth so why bother?
Why do they wallow in LIES???
LOL! Nowhere do I say that she said g warming is a hoax. You guys just make stuff up don't you?
WOW! Ol' Sneaky Snake's got nuthin' on you. Just slide right out from under what your comment intimates, dontcha? Nah, you didn't say that, but you MEANT it, eh? Sure you did.
Now go ahead and tear me up. Because we know that's what you do to anybody is isn't a part of your circle jerk.
Very sickening how they prey on the stupidity of their audience.
http://www.redstate.com/barrypopik/2010/12/19/nasa-did-you-really
-just-say-that-2010-was-the-warmest-year-on-record/
They old, "how can it be the warmest year when we are having a snowstorm"
Yes there are stupid people and sickos who prey on their feeble brains.
I stole the following from David K, it illustrates the denialists use of LIES as a weapon against reality.
As I've been documenting, there are many climate denialist tactics employed to intentionally mischaracterize, misrepresent, and outright lie about the state of climate science. One tactic is to throw all of these
things in at once, or to hop from one to another, so that a refutation cannot be made on a timely basis. It also can be called "lying ahead of the truth" (that is, keep lying faster than the truth can prove you wrong).
For example, many comments on Gather from climate denialists are a laundry list of talking points that go something like this (though the individual false points may change the key is the "everything plus the kitchen sink" strategy): [comments in italics are denialists, comments in [brackets] are the simple scientific rebuttal, along with links to supporting articles and videos]
The planet is cooling. [No, the planet is warming]
32,000 of the world's climate experts say it is a hoax [No, the survey is fake]
There is no consensus. [Yes, there is]
CRU emails prove there is a conspiracy [No, they don't (not even close)]
Phil Jones tried to "hide the decline" in temperature [No, he didn't]
Greenland used to be lush forest and farmland [No, it wasn't; and Erik wasn't red]
Many independent scientists disagree [No, they aren't independent; most aren't even scientists]
They will NEVER STOP LYING, misinterpreting, spinning or using any other dirty trick to stop reality.
The decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record, new surface temperature figures released Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) show.
The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1...880, when modern temperature measurement began. The warmest year was 2005. The other hottest recorded years have all occurred since 1998, NASA said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html
Climate change exists...We all know that...It's just that you can't (scientifically) pin it on human produced CO2!