Look at http://free.tibet/
But the problem is there is no uterus on earth big enough to gestate a mammoth.
It will have to wait until an artificial uterus can be developed. I'm led to believe it's not that far off, but that's the sticking point right now.
Check *recent* data.
Are you aware Lake Ontario froze two months early this year? I haz photos even. That's not because "winter".
Also, remember when the Greenland ice sheet melted last year and everyone freaked out?
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."
In a warming world wouldn't this have happened even one day early?
And if it's cyclical why did the headline read: "Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt"
How can it be "unprecedented" if it's cyclical? And on time?
No, no alarmism there. That's not "spin" at all.
Hansen doesn't work there any more. I'm sure thats just a coincidence. But this sort of self inconsistency has stopped showing up in NASA stuff now. Just another coincidence I'm sure.
I call bullshit on the 99.99% number.
Here's "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm"
Can you show me 1,350,000 papers in support of agw?
Who pays for all those news reports?
How come NASA didn't have to advertise it's hypothesis about space travel 100 times a day for 30 years, too?
Are you aware all this talk of climate has attenuated talk of pollution? Which isn't exactly less of a problem: look at the gulf, the dead zone(s), Fukushima or the dead coral. Turns out that it's only the coral near man, opean cean coral, even warmer bits is fine.
" temperatures are higher than we've seen in hundreds of years"
"Our models can been getting better and more accurate"
75% error between the 2007 IPCC prediction and 2012 IPCC results doesn't really man we're more accurate.
It means a chimp tossing a coin could have got better results.
Have you actually looked at the data? How bout them error bars, hmm?
'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change
"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
" The plant kingdom relies on nitrates too, that does not mean that dumping thousands of tons of nitrates into a river is not pollution. CO2 fixation is a feedback cycle. It normally is in stable equilibrium, which means that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to faster fixation by plants. This is kind of like how a ball in a bowl will return to the equilibrium point if you disturb it. However, if you push the ball hard enough, it will go over the edge and no longer be in equilibrium. This is what happened to CO2"
Excuse me but do you actually know anything about plants and ecology? This really sounds like you're making it up. It's not even close. We don't know what happens over 7000ppm. But under that, things are fine. How did corals, for example, survive this - they did. Any guesses there?
You are aware aren't you that people that grow plants, both terrestrial and aquatic pump in tons of CO2 to enhance growth and that all plants are C02 rate limited and that when NASA addeed this fact into the the model is showed that doubling CO2 made things just one degree warmer? And the next year the IPCC folks "discovered" trees eat CO2...
Please tell me this isn't news to you.
"did does not mean that CO2 is not pollution"
It's plant food. Fact: all plant life on earth, terrestrial and aquatic, is carbon dioxide rate-limited.
While you're looking this up (please do) look up what "CAM" plants are, too.
All of them. Which ones have held up? Show me one.
"The specifics of the models get tweaked continuously"
And after 35 years of tweaking the, um, *cough* error bars are um, well...
75% error between the 2007 and 2012 IPCC reports.
You sure they're tweaking the right way?
Look the numbers up yourself.
"When your hypothesis disagrees with nature,it's wrong" - Feynman.