Best answer: If they "support" it, the morons who vote for those people and those like me who live with the morons will pay. California with Moonbeam are always spending without any shame or hint that they know taxpayers are actually working hard for the money they flushing down the toilet. Flushing hard earned taxpayer money down the UN sewer is about the worst waste of money you could come up with but because B. O. and the Media were pushing it, the leftist drones fall right in line. It goes to show that it isn't the planet they are worried about. They are just sycophantic leftwing useful idiots.

Best answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CywMApt... :)

Best answer: Yes they are improving, and yes a skeptical blog would write about that if there were something interesting going on.
In fact I googled "improved weather forecasting watts up with that" and found several pages of articles, just from one skeptical blog alone.

Best answer: It depends on what you are trying to find. If you are looking for sea level data, there are both satellite and tide gauge measures.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltren...
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/sealev...

If you are trying to find temperature data, there are both satellite and temperature data taken at various stations.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-globa...
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/



If you are looking for extreme weather data, then which type of extreme weather? I recommend this report as a general overview.
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/21852/attribution-of-extreme-weather-events-in-the-context-of-climate-change

If you are looking crop production data (because SUPPOSEDLY global warming kills crops), then global crop is the best information.
https://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/

If you are looking for something else, let me know, and I can share the links I use.

If you review the data, you see two things. 1.) There is some warming that man is creating. 2.) It is not some impending catastrophe.

I can back my statements with the data, EASILY. This is why I linked you to data, not hype.

Best answer: Because it takes a lot of faith to accept it. Just look at those who believe and propose it.

Al Gore (An admitted liar)
Jimmy Hansen (A full time Communist agitator and a person who was caught red handed altering vital data.)
Bill Nye (The science lie.)
George Soros (A Nazi Collaborator.)
Paul Ehrlich (A Biologist who, like Al Gore and Jimmy Hansen, predicted an Ice Age back in the 70s.)
Barry Obama (If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.)

Scientifically, all these prominent men have failed in their assessment of the environment. Thus, to follow them takes a great amount of faith. And that comes under RELIGION!

Best answer: I would if anyone could actually prove it. Trouble is, that there are so many hucksters out there who get you to do ridiculous things in the name of saving the Earth. Every one of those hucksters that I have had contact with has been proven wrong. You can't save the Earth by lying.

Best answer: <<<Fears were raised that green energy concerns were prioritised ahead of safety as it emerged that cladding used to make the building more sustainable could have accelerated the fire.>>>

I suppose there is always a balance between cost, risk and efficiency. In this case they lost. It does seem they could use a substance that wasn't so dangerous in hindsight. I believe in insulation. Having come from South Dakota, I know full well that is a money saver not to mention just making your home more comfortable. Here in California, they minimize insulation and I then have to climb up into the attic and add it and to the walls as well which is much more difficult. Climate change didn't claim the lives, but maybe overzealous attempts to curb energy use played a role.

Best answer: Will warmers be happy... You can stop right there.
They won't be happy, at least not 90% of them. They will find something else to whine about. These people are alarmists precisely because they find things to be unhappy about. If you can't be happy about a nice warm day, well what does that say.

AGW is primarily about exaggerating for a political cause. When it becomes no longer useful for the advancement of the cause, they will find something else. In fact, it is just the last in a long string of catastrophes that they have used to push the Cause. The Cause is leftism of course and that is the driving force for their unhappiness and never ending series of crises that they whine about.

Best answer: Embrace your boogeymen and get over your fears. Oil has given us most of the progress in the two centuries. Koch Ind. helps feed, clothe, and move a large part of the nation. You're in way over your head with nothing but Oppose and Resist memes. Why aren't you living in a cabin in the woods by beeswax candlelight? Because oil.

Best answer: The Chinese and EU hierarchy understand science, in fact most of the world signed this agreement except Syria, which was ravaged by civil war and so didn't participate; Nicaragua who didn't sign the agreement because it didn't go far enough and......not America but what Noam Chomsky correctly labeled the most dangerous organisation in human history; the Republican party.

The American public overwhelmingly understand science, the Republican party speaks for its funders

Another unfortunate thing for deniers is that China is a dictatorship, they can accept climate change or not, there will not be any political pressure from special interests and yet they do accept it, this is because they understand basic science.

The scientific evidence is there. My earth science professor believes this and many others do too. He blames humans and their consumption of fossil fuels. So why do conservatives keep denying it? Why don't they believe in it? Even Bill Nye The Science Guy believes in global warming and he thinks it is crazy that in this day and age that people deny it.

Best answer: It is impossible to say, since by their own COP rules:

Page 87, #77
"A separate pool of funding to finance national coordinating bodies through a direct line item in the secretariat’s budget shall be established. Such support shall not be subject to measurement, reporting and verification."

So we get to pay in but there is no method for us to find out where our money goes. All we know is that the US, who didn't ratify the agreement, paid in $1 billion and all the rest of the other nations paid in $0. After all, that is what it was all about. Picking the US taxpayer's pocket.

Best answer: That's a really good question.

I prefer not to answer in sound bites. This is really a complex question. It is complicated because the end of the little ice age coincided with the start of the industrial era, when we started to burn lots of fossil fuels. So the answer is most likely both- recovery from the LIA and extra CO2 emitted by us people.

Best answer: Yet another lib lost his grip on reality.

Best answer: I don't understand what Trump is doing.

1.) It is possible that he is wanting to renegotiate to increase the CO2 reductions of other countries, because under the original agreements, US had agreed to the most reductions.

If this is the case, then Warmers should be strongly behind Trump. If the Warmers remember correctly, they USED to think that the Paris agreement asked for too little from other countries.

2.) Trump could simply be asking for less money from the US to go to the Climate funds with the other countries actually giving money. Warmers should be OK with this. This forces the issue that while the US has given 1 billion, no other country has really contributed at all. Forcing them to contribute, can be a good or bad thing.

3.) Trump wants to lower the US CO2 reductions. If this is the case, Warmers should be upset.

So to review #1 - Warmers should be very happy. #2 - Warmers should be rather indifferent. #3 - Warmers should be upset.

Of course, most warmers are liberals, so it really doesn't matter if Trump is going for 1, 2 or 3, liberals are going to find an excuse to be upset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JcVMkyJ...

Best answer: Gravity certainly also plays a role. Glaciers typically form uphill and flow downward until they melt or if they make it to the ocean, they break off into the ocean and melt Obviously liquid water would tend to melt it more than air temperature after that. Note: the gravity is pulling the ice to warmer conditions in lower elevation in case that isn't obvious to alarmists.

Best answer: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Liberals find an excuse to blame someone else for the world's woes. Here are some examples:

Israel is the reason Palistinians beat their wives.
Hillary blaming the murder of our Ambassador on a film.
The 911 attack was caused by Bush being so mean.
President Bush snuck down to New Orleans in the middle of the night and blew up the dam.

These are just a few. but now, we have Gary F calling Jim Z a liar and putting the blame on the North Pole sending all that ice down to the Antarctic. "Jim conveniently leaves out the fact that the ice had drifted south from the high arctic. Lying by omission is still lying." (Comment in Jim Z's answer.)

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! My next guess is that Gary F will be blaming Trump for this. Or maybe it was Santa Claus. Maybe he was getting tired of his igloo and wanted a change of scenery. Oh, yes, NOAA has reported on a traffic jam of ice bergs heading down to the Antarctic. They are planning on installing traffic lights on the Equator. Gary should inform Bloomberg and maybe he can divert some of these icebergs to NYC then they wouldn't be having record heat waves. (And this would solve their drinking water problem, also.)

In answer to the question: It really was just an excuse for these 'climate scientists' to get out of the office and away from their wives or same sex partners to bask in the Antarctic sunshine caused by Global Warming. They can do this and make heroes of themselves by dictating the horrors of Climate Change to their sexy assistants all payed for by the US taxpayer. Now these poor 'scientists' will have to adjourn to a Club Med for a new 'Environmental Crisis Conference' and figure out a way to make the American taxpayer pay for it. (And just think about it: There are no laws against taking drugs in the Antarctic. HAPPY TIME!)

Unfortunately, these outright crooks have no conscience, scientific sense or morals. It is apparent that they are seeing the golden goose is fleeing and are going pluck the goose all they can before it vanishes. These are not the people you can put your trust in.