PDA

View Full Version : INCONVENIENT TRUTHS OF THE DAY 01/29/12



LWW
01-30-2012, 04:37 AM
- Man made global warming is the biggest leftist scientific fraud since Piltdown Man.

- There has been no global warming for 15 years or more.

- Many in the scientific community are tired of being threatened and bullied by the Goremon cult.

- Every IPCC model prediction has been wrong since they began this junk science jihad 22 years ago.

- There is nothing unusual about the 20th century warming period.

- The 20th century warming period was good for humanity due to expanding the growing seasons and areas which were possible to farm.

- The push to promote man made global warming was simply based on the nations paying to get "PROOF" and then getting it ... while ignoring everything else.

- The largest benefit to mankind would come from abandoning the Goremon faith entirely.

- CO2 is not a pollutant.

TRUTH (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html) ... acts like Kryptonite on Goremons.

Soflasnapper
01-30-2012, 01:07 PM
- There has been no global warming for 15 years or more.

Here you impeach your own linked source, which instead says '10 years.'

I wonder why it is that of the 16 scientists signing onto this statement, just 2, maybe 3 stretching it a bit, are atmospheric or climate scientists?

Surely, if this anti-AGW train is picking up steam (and professional scientists active in climactic research), there ought to be more than 3 on this list. Since there ARE ONLY THREE, however, perhaps the latter isn't all that true.

LWW
01-30-2012, 04:58 PM
Actually ity says "WELL OVER" ten years ago ... and "AGO" was referenced as 2009.

Soflasnapper
01-30-2012, 06:00 PM
Yes, it said over 10 years. Thanks, I appreciate all accurate corrections.

No, 'ago' wasn't 2009, that's an unrelated date.

Here I apologize for stating only 2 or 3 climate experts signed this. Of course, it is only 1, Lindzer.

And checking it again, I didn't find AGW described as a hoax, let alone the biggest hoax since Piltdown man.

Qtec
01-31-2012, 07:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch strikes again!

For years now, all of Murdoch’s far-flung properties, including Fox News, have made every effort to deny mainstream scientific theories regarding global warming. Never mind that not even one reputable scientific organization in the world disagrees with those mainstream theories. Murdoch knows what his readers and viewers want.

Accordingly, under the headline “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal published an eminently assailable opinion piece the other day signed by 16 scientists, <u>several of whom are notorious cranks.</u>
This was after the Journal had turned down an article from <u>255 members of the National Academy of Sciences </u>explaining the urgency of the climate-change issue. </div></div>

Q

Sev
01-31-2012, 08:33 PM
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
</span>

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...l#ixzz1l5qJSgos (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1l5qJSgos)


The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/28/article-2093264-117F2046000005DC-981_468x286.jpg
A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age

A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.



According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/28/article-2093264-1180A4F1000005DC-28_468x286.jpg
The world average temperature from 1997 to 2012

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/28/article-2093264-1180A549000005DC-715_468x290.jpg
World solar activity cycles from 1749 to 2040

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/28/article-2093264-1180A572000005DC-276_468x290.jpg
Four hundred years of sunspot observations

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

Sev
01-31-2012, 08:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">- There has been no global warming for 15 years or more.

Here you impeach your own linked source, which instead says '10 years.'

I wonder why it is that of the 16 scientists signing onto this statement, just 2, maybe 3 stretching it a bit, are atmospheric or climate scientists?

Surely, if this anti-AGW train is picking up steam (and professional scientists active in climactic research), there ought to be more than 3 on this list. Since there ARE ONLY THREE, however, perhaps the latter isn't all that true. </div></div>

Just a question.
What does "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for<span style='font-size: 17pt'> <span style="color: #CC0000">well over 10 years now.</span></span>", infer?

cushioncrawler
01-31-2012, 11:56 PM
It appears that navigation near the north pole wont be acheeved for many years.

But there iz still some bad logik going on re the solar stuff.
If solar flares cycles and oceanic dynamics cycles are going to go into a low and drag temps down for a while, then good -- but surely before long when the up-cycles hit then the inkreeced CO2 trend will take temps throo the roof. In other words its allready too late under both theorys.
mac.

Qtec
02-01-2012, 01:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree</span>
Posted on 2 February 2012 by MarkR

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a British political think tank that attacks climate science. Its commentary is often regurgitated by journalists at newspapers with similar political opinions on climate science such as the Daily Mail, Express and Telegraph (<u>whose consulting science editor is a GWPF adviser</u>). </div></div>

Sourcewatch.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Global Warming Policy Foundation


Learn more from the Center for Media and Democracy's research on climate change.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a United Kingdom group opposing action to mitigate climate change. Founded by Nigel Lawson,[1] it is a registered educational charity "deeply concerned about <u>the costs</u> and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated" to mitigate global warming.[2]

Although founder Lawson claims to accept that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, this acceptance appears to be "considerably less than half-hearted;"[3] the GWPF webpage banner image sports a short-term (2001-2010) temperature graph (blue, below) giving the appearance that the world is not warming. </div></div>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/2/23/GWPF_graph_2011-12.png

Compare the 10-year GWPF graph (blue) to the longer-term graphs to the right: 1979-2010 showing the true global warming signal[4] (with natural variability removed) and 1880-2010 (including natural variability).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/1/16/AGW1_TrueSignalFoster-Rahmstorf.gif

http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/thumb/9/91/NASA-Global-Land-Ocean-Temp-Fig.A2.gif/200px-NASA-Global-Land-Ocean-Temp-Fig.A2.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/recent_temp_comparison.png

So what was the Met's response to the Daily Mail article?

Lets see.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012
29 01 2012

Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>This article includes numerous errors</span> in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and <span style='font-size: 17pt'>for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.</span>

<u>Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose</u> ahead of the publication of the story, <u>he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.</u>
For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.

“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”</span>
</div></div> link (http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/)

Chart.
http://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/compare_datasets.png

The Sun?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming</span>

23 January 2012 - New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

Carried out by the Met Office and the University of Reading, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun's activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on Earth.

It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC's B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions) </div></div> link (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research)

Q

LWW
02-01-2012, 03:25 AM
Are you aware your graphs prove my point?

LWW
02-01-2012, 03:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">- There has been no global warming for 15 years or more.

Here you impeach your own linked source, which instead says '10 years.'

I wonder why it is that of the 16 scientists signing onto this statement, just 2, maybe 3 stretching it a bit, are atmospheric or climate scientists?

Surely, if this anti-AGW train is picking up steam (and professional scientists active in climactic research), there ought to be more than 3 on this list. Since there ARE ONLY THREE, however, perhaps the latter isn't all that true. </div></div>

Just a question.
What does "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for<span style='font-size: 17pt'> <span style="color: #CC0000">well over 10 years now.</span></span>", infer?
</div></div>

Thanks, and thanks for posting the second article that I had read on this ... which happens to note:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing <span style='font-size: 17pt'>the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.</span> </div></div>

LWW
02-01-2012, 03:30 AM
[quote=Qtec] <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch strikes again!

Q </div></div>

Your problem is that FOX has nothing to do with this.

In fact, the truly damning part is that the University of East Anglia was the key group in the CLIMATEGATE scandal ... and now that they have been found out and forced to tell the truth, folks like you deny the actual science after years of wallowing with glee in the slop of junk science.

Qtec
02-01-2012, 04:11 AM
Your ability to ignore facts is astounding.


We ALL know your OPINION, anything to back it up?

Eh.................no.


Q..... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
02-01-2012, 04:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your ability to ignore facts is astounding.


We ALL know your OPINION, anything to back it up?

Q..... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. </div></div>

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/28/article-2093264-1180A4F1000005DC-28_468x286.jpg

Qtec
02-01-2012, 04:25 AM
LOL. HoWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW PATHETIC.

Your response in a discussion is to post info that has been thoroughly discredited. How apt.


Q.........LWW........waste of time................too far gone.

Qtec
02-01-2012, 04:27 AM
The TRUTH, if you can handle it???????????


http://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/compare_datasets.png

Click your heels Dorothy and repeat,

'There is no Global Warming, There is no Global Warming, There is no Global Warming, There is no Global Warming, because EXXON tells me its so. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

..they fed you and you LAPPED IT UP!

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Soflasnapper
02-01-2012, 12:11 PM
Are you aware of what constitutes a trend line?

If so, what is the trend line in that data set? Not specifically what slope figure, but is the slope up, or is the slope down?

Soflasnapper
02-01-2012, 12:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">- There has been no global warming for 15 years or more.

Here you impeach your own linked source, which instead says '10 years.'

I wonder why it is that of the 16 scientists signing onto this statement, just 2, maybe 3 stretching it a bit, are atmospheric or climate scientists?

Surely, if this anti-AGW train is picking up steam (and professional scientists active in climactic research), there ought to be more than 3 on this list. Since there ARE ONLY THREE, however, perhaps the latter isn't all that true. </div></div>

Just a question.
What does "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for<span style='font-size: 17pt'> <span style="color: #CC0000">well over 10 years now.</span></span>", infer?
</div></div>

If it were true, I'd infer something (although the data would IMPLY something, not infer anything).

Apparently, it's false, as what THEY mean by that involves sea level atmospheric and higher atmosphere temperature measurements.

As some may remember, there is a gigantic part of this planet, the majority of its surface area, and often miles deep worth, known as the oceans.

And apparently, by measuring the temperature of the oceans and seas at various depths, through complicated temperature exchange mechanisms, the OCEANS have been heating up. Meaning it's NOT TRUE that the EARTH hasn't shown warming (as a whole).

From a day or two ago. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093947/Nasa-solves-mystery-Earths-missing-energy--going-sea-says-space-agency.html)

Soflasnapper
02-01-2012, 12:32 PM
From the WSJ letter section, a rebuttal using 100% signators who are actual working climatologists, on this particular subject:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.
</span>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend.
</span>
The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases.

Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused.</div></div>

WSJ link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html?m od=wsj_share_tweet)

LWW
02-02-2012, 04:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The TRUTH, if you can handle it???????????


http://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/compare_datasets.png

Click your heels Dorothy and repeat,

'There is no Global Warming, There is no Global Warming, There is no Global Warming, There is no Global Warming, because EXXON tells me its so. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

..they fed you and you LAPPED IT UP!

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif </div></div>

So ... the old evidence, which you post and has been officially discredited, is what you cling to like a dying man to a reed. And you accept the source as unquestionable.

Then ... after the same source is busted, and releases un-massaged date, you declare that to be discredited.

Oh, and you want me to believe you aren't spoon fed but I am.

That's precious ... simply precious.

Qtec
02-02-2012, 04:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you aware of what constitutes a trend line? </div></div>

Got an answer?


See any TREND here?

http://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/compare_datasets.png

Q

LWW
02-02-2012, 05:01 AM
Why are you reposting outdated and discredited data?

Qtec
02-02-2012, 05:21 AM
Can't remember where it was discredited.

Q

LWW
02-02-2012, 05:52 AM
I believe you ... the regime obviously doesn't clear you to know the truth.

Might I suggest something radical ... maybe, paying attention?

Qtec
02-02-2012, 07:08 AM
So you have no evidence, except your own delusions, to refute that it ever was was discredited.

Thought so.

Its clear to all that you are FOS.

Keep it up.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you aware of what constitutes a trend line? </div></div>

Again, no straight answer to a simple question. PATHETIC.

Q

LWW
02-02-2012, 05:13 PM
Why do you deny the science?

What's that?

The regime told you to deny the science?

But ... I already knew that.