Climate Hoax

[red viking]

On 11/16/2024 at 6:31 PM, jross said:

Scientists have said the global average temperature has been increasing at a rate of about 0.30°C per decade in recent times where as the temperature rose 10°C (18°F) in a decade.  Greenland - end of Younger Dryas, 11.5K years ago.

https://web.archive.org/web/20161222172141/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/The Younger Dryas

Try again

[mspart]

You could refute it.   But refuse to do so.  You might try again.  It would help your argument. 

mspart

[RockLobster]

6 hours ago, Caveira said:

So you can’t refute either point?

why are the banks financing anything in those regions…. If they will be gone in xyz # of years? 
 

Sure you don’t have to like the guy.  He is sort of an a hole…. But where is he wrong?

"why are the banks financing anything in those regions"

Same reason anyone takes risk - insurance.

[headshuck]

Who would insure such an investment?

[Lipdrag]

 

So, all the automakers go all in on the hoax fully toady-ing up to the Climateers in a conspiracy against their customers' desires and wonder how it went so bad so quickly.  If only someone could mandate a Flux Capacitor - or the upgrade to the Mr. Fusion - for these companies and solve all their problems.

 

[red viking]

On 11/18/2024 at 6:55 PM, mspart said:

You could refute it.   But refuse to do so.  You might try again.  It would help your argument. 

mspart

It doesn't prove anything whatsoever. I'm talking about global warming, overall. Not one part of the planet getting cooler while another gets a lot hotter. That's merely a transfer of heat and not necessarily a significant overall change. 

[ionel]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

 I'm talking about global warming, overall. 

Didn't even the global warming folks debunk global warming hence why we have climate change?  

Edited November 20 by ionel

[Caveira]

4 hours ago, red viking said:

It doesn't prove anything whatsoever. I'm talking about global warming, overall. Not one part of the planet getting cooler while another gets a lot hotter. That's merely a transfer of heat and not necessarily a significant overall change. 

….. which one of these scientists are right in your opinion @red viking   Is the world gonna end in the 60s or 70s or 80s or 2600s?

is it getting hotter or colder?

………

 

 August 10, 1969, in the New York Times: “We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”

April 1970, in Mademoiselle: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

Harvard biologist and Nobel Prize winner George Wald, speaking at the University of Rhode Island in November 1970: “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

Dennis Hayes, key organizer of Earth Day, in The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970: “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

In 1970, as greenhouse theorists pushed a rise in average temperature, plenty of prognosticators asserted a big freeze. Kenneth Watt sounded the ice alarm, speaking in Pennsylvania at Swarthmore College: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

 

 

 

Also in 1970, the Boston Globe ran with a chilling headline, “Scientist Predicts A New Ice Age By 21^stCentury.” In the associated article, researcher James Lodge warned, “Air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the next century if population continues to grow and earth’s resources are consumed at the present rate…”

The Guardian, Jan. 29, 1974, echoed the Globe: “Spy Satellites Show New Ice Age is Coming Fast.”

Time joined the cooling trend June 22, 1974: “Telltale signs are everywhere, from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 F.”

 

Newsweek weighed in on April 28, 1975, warning that global cooling would significantly impact agriculture. “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production…”

“The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” the Newsweekarticle continued. “Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

Following Newsweek, the New York Times piped in on July 18, 1976, with additional gloom on agriculture’s demise attributed to global cooling. “… the news for the future is not all good. The climate is going to get unreliable. It is going to get cold. Harvest failures and regional famines will be more frequent. Weather will probably make history—again.”

 

 

 

“The relationship of global climate to food supplies is a case in point: climatic researchers are becoming alarmed that in the next 10 to 100 years humanity will be unable to feed itself—not through technological insufficiency or political mischief—but because of climatic changes that it can barely understand or control.”

 

Even in 1978, global cooling was a “No End” fact, according to another New York Times article: “An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.” 

However, just a year after the global cooling article, the New York Times predicted catastrophe via global warming in a February 1979 story: “Climatologists Are Warned North Pole Might Melt,” featuring a jarring opening paragraph: “There is a real possibility that some people now in their infancy will live to a time when the ice at the North Pole will have melted, a change that would cause swift and perhaps catastrophic changes in climate.”

It was the end of the 1970s and big cold failed to arrive. Bring on big heat.

Acid rain concerns kicked off the 1980s, but generally were replaced late in the decade with a flood of headlines on heat, greenhouse effect, and sea levels. 

 

 

 

In 1982, Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN’s Environment Program, pointed to the possibility of widespread devastation in less than 20 years. He cited “an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” 

On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press squeezed decimation into a tight, 11-year window, with an ominous article, “Rising Seas Could Obliterate Nations,” containing a jaw-dropping opener: “A senior UN environmental official (Noel Brown) says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

 

In 1990, aware the apocalypse was stalled, Mostafa Tolba, doubled down: “We shall win or lose the climate struggle in the first years of the 1990s. The issue is as urgent as that.”

 

 

 

In February 1993, Thomas Lovejoy, assistant secretary for Environmental and External Affairs at the Smithsonian Institution, stressed the world had one remaining decade of opportunity to avoid calamity. “I am utterly convinced that most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.” 

The 1990s was a steady chain of doomsday assurances, but the heaviest hyperbole was yet to be unleashed.

 

In 2006, former vice-president Al Gore projected that unless drastic measures were implemented, the planet would hit an irreversible “point of no return” by 2016. Game over.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Climate Panel, one-upped Gore in 2007, insisting 2012 was the year of irreversibility. “If there is no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

In April 2008, media mogul Ted Turner provided far more detail than either Gore or Pachauri, emphasizing the consequences of climate inaction. “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not 10 but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan, and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad there’ll be no more corn growing.” 

The acclaimed godfather of global warming, James Hansen, drew a line in the sand testifying before Congress in June 2008, on the dangers of greenhouse gases: “We’re toast if we don’t get on a very different path. This is the last chance.”

A year later, in July 2009, then-Prince Charles chimed in, asserting the planet had 96 months to avoid decimation: “…irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.”

 

 

Only three months later, UK prime minister Gordon Brown urged nations to pull a historical handbrake ahead of a climate conference: “There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice. By then, it will be irretrievably too late.”

In 2014, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius upped Brown’s 50 days to 500. “We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Twelve years to 2031. In January 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put her chips on 2031 as the potential end of days. “Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it? And, like, this is the war—this is our World War ll.”

Eleven years to 2030. Echoing Ocasio-Cortez in March 2019, but shaving off a year, UN General Assembly President Maria Garces declared an 11-year window to escape catastrophe: “We are the last generation that can prevent irreparable damage to our planet.”

In June 2019, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden threw his support behind Ocasio-Cortez’s dozen-year projection: “Science tells us that how we act or fail to act in the next 12 years will determine the very livability of our planet.” 

Full circle back to 2023, and the UN’s latest “time-bomb,” released March 20, as described by the Associated Press: “Humanity still has a chance close to the last to prevent the worst of climate change’s future harms…”

In step with near annual UN declarations from the past 50 years, Secretary-General Guterresonce again sounded the alarm: “The climate time-bomb is ticking.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[red viking]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

….. which one of these scientists are right in your opinion @red viking   Is the world gonna end in the 60s or 70s or 80s or 2600s?

is it getting hotter or colder?

………

 

 August 10, 1969, in the New York Times: “We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”

April 1970, in Mademoiselle: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

Harvard biologist and Nobel Prize winner George Wald, speaking at the University of Rhode Island in November 1970: “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

Dennis Hayes, key organizer of Earth Day, in The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970: “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

 

In 1970, as greenhouse theorists pushed a rise in average temperature, plenty of prognosticators asserted a big freeze. Kenneth Watt sounded the ice alarm, speaking in Pennsylvania at Swarthmore College: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

 

 

 

Also in 1970, the Boston Globe ran with a chilling headline, “Scientist Predicts A New Ice Age By 21^stCentury.” In the associated article, researcher James Lodge warned, “Air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the next century if population continues to grow and earth’s resources are consumed at the present rate…”

The Guardian, Jan. 29, 1974, echoed the Globe: “Spy Satellites Show New Ice Age is Coming Fast.”

Time joined the cooling trend June 22, 1974: “Telltale signs are everywhere, from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 F.”

 

Newsweek weighed in on April 28, 1975, warning that global cooling would significantly impact agriculture. “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production…”

“The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” the Newsweekarticle continued. “Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

Following Newsweek, the New York Times piped in on July 18, 1976, with additional gloom on agriculture’s demise attributed to global cooling. “… the news for the future is not all good. The climate is going to get unreliable. It is going to get cold. Harvest failures and regional famines will be more frequent. Weather will probably make history—again.”

 

 

 

“The relationship of global climate to food supplies is a case in point: climatic researchers are becoming alarmed that in the next 10 to 100 years humanity will be unable to feed itself—not through technological insufficiency or political mischief—but because of climatic changes that it can barely understand or control.”

 

Even in 1978, global cooling was a “No End” fact, according to another New York Times article: “An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.” 

However, just a year after the global cooling article, the New York Times predicted catastrophe via global warming in a February 1979 story: “Climatologists Are Warned North Pole Might Melt,” featuring a jarring opening paragraph: “There is a real possibility that some people now in their infancy will live to a time when the ice at the North Pole will have melted, a change that would cause swift and perhaps catastrophic changes in climate.”

It was the end of the 1970s and big cold failed to arrive. Bring on big heat.

 

Acid rain concerns kicked off the 1980s, but generally were replaced late in the decade with a flood of headlines on heat, greenhouse effect, and sea levels. 

 

 

 

In 1982, Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN’s Environment Program, pointed to the possibility of widespread devastation in less than 20 years. He cited “an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” 

On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press squeezed decimation into a tight, 11-year window, with an ominous article, “Rising Seas Could Obliterate Nations,” containing a jaw-dropping opener: “A senior UN environmental official (Noel Brown) says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

 

In 1990, aware the apocalypse was stalled, Mostafa Tolba, doubled down: “We shall win or lose the climate struggle in the first years of the 1990s. The issue is as urgent as that.”

 

 

 

In February 1993, Thomas Lovejoy, assistant secretary for Environmental and External Affairs at the Smithsonian Institution, stressed the world had one remaining decade of opportunity to avoid calamity. “I am utterly convinced that most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.” 

The 1990s was a steady chain of doomsday assurances, but the heaviest hyperbole was yet to be unleashed.

 

 

In 2006, former vice-president Al Gore projected that unless drastic measures were implemented, the planet would hit an irreversible “point of no return” by 2016. Game over.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Climate Panel, one-upped Gore in 2007, insisting 2012 was the year of irreversibility. “If there is no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

In April 2008, media mogul Ted Turner provided far more detail than either Gore or Pachauri, emphasizing the consequences of climate inaction. “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not 10 but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan, and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad there’ll be no more corn growing.” 

The acclaimed godfather of global warming, James Hansen, drew a line in the sand testifying before Congress in June 2008, on the dangers of greenhouse gases: “We’re toast if we don’t get on a very different path. This is the last chance.”

A year later, in July 2009, then-Prince Charles chimed in, asserting the planet had 96 months to avoid decimation: “…irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.”

 

 

Only three months later, UK prime minister Gordon Brown urged nations to pull a historical handbrake ahead of a climate conference: “There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice. By then, it will be irretrievably too late.”

In 2014, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius upped Brown’s 50 days to 500. “We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Twelve years to 2031. In January 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put her chips on 2031 as the potential end of days. “Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it? And, like, this is the war—this is our World War ll.”

Eleven years to 2030. Echoing Ocasio-Cortez in March 2019, but shaving off a year, UN General Assembly President Maria Garces declared an 11-year window to escape catastrophe: “We are the last generation that can prevent irreparable damage to our planet.”

In June 2019, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden threw his support behind Ocasio-Cortez’s dozen-year projection: “Science tells us that how we act or fail to act in the next 12 years will determine the very livability of our planet.” 

Full circle back to 2023, and the UN’s latest “time-bomb,” released March 20, as described by the Associated Press: “Humanity still has a chance close to the last to prevent the worst of climate change’s future harms…”

In step with near annual UN declarations from the past 50 years, Secretary-General Guterresonce again sounded the alarm: “The climate time-bomb is ticking.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complete logical fallacy. Cherry pick predictions from specific people that over estimated the amount of climate change and use that to what? That climate change doesn't exist at all?

[Caveira]

5 minutes ago, red viking said:

Complete logical fallacy. Cherry pick predictions from specific people that over estimated the amount of climate change and use that to what? That climate change doesn't exist at all?

You tell me brother.   The hysteria is 70-100+ years old.   One day they’ll get a prediction right.    Right?    Maybe.

ill ask u a direct question.  If we invest 1 trillion dollars in us tax payer money.   By some arbitrary year.  Let’s call it 2034…. How much impact will it have on the climate.  What if it was 2 trillion.   Or 10.  Or 100?

Edited November 21 by Caveira

[red viking]

30 minutes ago, Caveira said:

You tell me brother.   The hysteria is 70-100+ years old.   One day they’ll get a prediction right.    Right?    Maybe.

ill ask u a direct question.  If we invest 1 trillion dollars in us tax payer money.   By some arbitrary year.  Let’s call it 2034…. How much impact will it have on the climate.  What if it was 2 trillion.   Or 10.  Or 100?

Two different topics. 1) climate change is almost all if not 100% man-made. That's a fact and very simple. 2) the best policies in reaction to that fact are very much a matter of opinion and much more complicated. 

Edited November 21 by red viking

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, red viking said:

Two different topics. 1) climate change is almost all if not 100% man-made. That's a fact and very simple. 2) the best policies in reaction to that fact are very much a matter of opinion and much more complicated. 

Try again.   So you got nothing.  

[RockLobster]

On 11/18/2024 at 3:01 PM, Caveira said:

So you can’t refute either point?

why are the banks financing anything in those regions…. If they will be gone in xyz # of years? 
 

Sure you don’t have to like the guy.  He is sort of an a hole…. But where is he wrong?

We haven't been "on this planet" for 13.8 billion years.

The earth is less than 5 billion years old.

I may have either misread you, or misread your intentions - either way, it was my mistake.

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, RockLobster said:

We haven't been "on this planet" for 13.8 billion years.

The earth is less than 5 billion years old.

I may have either misread you, or misread your intentions - either way, it was my mistake.

Be careful switching between your two accounts sir…. Don’t wanna cross post b.  

also refute one of the real points.  

[RockLobster]

On 11/17/2024 at 9:14 PM, Caveira said:

Refute this video from don lemon 

two points.  The fart in the wind…….  And the banks the investments I.e….. the fark all (spelled wrong on purpose).   Caution he said the f word several times.

I'm officially refuting.

Point #1: Fart in the wind

This drippy guy says that the topic at hand doesn't amount to a 'fart in the wind' compared to the 13.8 billion years we've been on this planet. EXCEPT, the earth has only existed for less the 5 billion years.

He's wrong - the earth is <5b years old, but he claims it is 13.8b.

Point #2: Bank investments

"why are the banks financing anything in those regions…. If they will be gone in xyz # of years? "

Banks will finance people in risky regions, as long as the people have adequate insurance to pay for whatever bad things that come their way.

No matter how bad things get - the insurance company will pay the banks.

The banks have nothing to lose. If banks didn't always profit, they wouldn't exist.

Banks finance there because they will profit from it.

Edited November 21 by RockLobster

[mspart]

14 hours ago, RockLobster said:

No matter how bad things get - the insurance company will pay the banks.

The banks have nothing to lose. If banks didn't always profit, they wouldn't exist.

Banks finance there because they will profit from it.

Unless the insurance companies run out of money.   See FL.

mspart

[RockLobster]

9 hours ago, mspart said:

Unless the insurance companies run out of money.   See FL.

mspart

If they start running out of money, the insurance companies raise their rates to compensate.

They are kind of like the cockroaches of business... they almost always survive.

[ionel]

2 hours ago, RockLobster said:

If they start running out of money, the insurance companies raise their rates to compensate.

They are kind of like the cockroaches of business... they almost always survive.

Would you rather that insurance companies just run out of money and go bankrupt? 

[Husker_Du]

On 11/20/2024 at 7:15 PM, red viking said:

climate change is almost all if not 100% man-made. That's a fact and very simple.

lmfao. 

you keep slurping whatever they tell you, dont ya?

[Husker_Du]

watch this (this guy doesn't agree that climate change is a hoax, but it's pretty clear it's not man made.)

1) we are at the lowest temperatures in the 485m years

2) we are at the lowest C02 in 485m years

3) we currently have the greatest biodiversity in the history of earth

4) there is precedent wherein global temperatures rose faster than they do now

4a) on of which instances is they think is the main contributor to the thriving of humans

5) the sun is is 50% bigger than when earth first formed (which he says means we need lower C02 to offset) (please tell me how mowing down forests to install solar panels helps this)

6) 250m years ago the earth rose 10C in 50k years. and there was a mass extinction. currently, we rose 1C in 50 years, which is of great concern.

7) plastic is of GIANT concern. (something i always contended. idk why we, as half the world shouts at the moon over environment, we allow plastic to proliferate)

8 - the video oddly turns from human emissions to humans effect on biodiversity (which he stated in the beginning was the greatest in earth's history.)

9) ok i kinda get it. biodiversity is up, but overall #'s (animal biomass) is down.

10) a bunch of stuff of oxygen in the ocean and ocean currents (idk what this has to do with human causes)

overall, i think it's worth the watch

 

[Husker_Du]

We're still in an ice age, btw.

and a methane boom didn't correspond w/ human activity or fossil fuel consumption. 

this makes clear that quickly changing climate change is nothing novel or due to humans.

a significant (and measured) effect of temperature change is due to regular changes in the earth's orbit (something called "the Milankovic Cycle) and angle of polar axis.

the earth goes thru an equilibrium process at all times. 

rot roh, here might go my theory - a land fill in Iran and fossil fuel plants in Turkmenistan are putting out ridiculous amounts of methane.

update - he says they are new developments 

natural (wetlands/tropical/permafrost) sources have increased methane emissions. 

improvements in methane capture tech from landfills can help. 

 

[red viking]

13 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

We're still in an ice age, btw.

and a methane boom didn't correspond w/ human activity or fossil fuel consumption. 

this makes clear that quickly changing climate change is nothing novel or due to humans.

a significant (and measured) effect of temperature change is due to regular changes in the earth's orbit (something called "the Milankovic Cycle) and angle of polar axis.

the earth goes thru an equilibrium process at all times. 

rot roh, here might go my theory - a land fill in Iran and fossil fuel plants in Turkmenistan are putting out ridiculous amounts of methane.

update - he says they are new developments 

natural (wetlands/tropical/permafrost) sources have increased methane emissions. 

improvements in methane capture tech from landfills can help. 

 

Wrong, 100%. Climatologists cam control for these much slower natural cycles in their models. Humans are 100% responsible for the recent warming 

[ionel]

38 minutes ago, red viking said:

Wrong, 100%. Climatologists cam control for these much slower natural cycles in their models. Humans are 100% responsible for the recent warming 

100%?  ... if a bison farts in the woods and no one is there to hear does it have no effect on climate?  

Edited November 22 by ionel

[Husker_Du]

54 minutes ago, red viking said:

Wrong, 100%. Climatologists cam control for these much slower natural cycles in their models. Humans are 100% responsible for the recent warming 

i'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but...

all science and data shows natural (pre human, pre industrialization) warming and cooling of the earth.

so your theory is nonsense. 

[RockLobster]

18 hours ago, ionel said:

Would you rather that insurance companies just run out of money and go bankrupt? 

Um. No. (Not sure where you got that idea.)