Simply Amazing...

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think tomatoes are one of the few things worth growing, they taste so much better then grocery store. Well, tomatos and ganja.

[Joemailman]

not so many run over by snowmobilers, I reckon

Snowmobilers seem more adept at hitting trees than deer.

[GrnBay007]

It would be nice if I could grow tomatoes year round instead of just in the summer.

Agree!!! Or even if the season was extended a few months. Just can't beat a fresh tomato!

[MJZiggy]

Our ski resorts are suffering...and if I hadn't pulled out the plants, they might even still be producing!

[MJZiggy]

Oh, and the cherry blossoms are blooming in places. Roses are blooming along with other flowers.

[HowardRoark]

...and if I hadn't pulled out the plants, they might even still be producing!

I know the feeling.

[SkinBasket]

Funny, the link I provided, which you conveniently skipped because it completely debunks your viewpoint was one of 708,000...

Well, if Richard Muller says it's true it must be!

He believes global warming is true. That temperatures have risen over time. Specifically 1.5 degrees over 60 years. Then he specifically states that he has no idea how much of that is due to humans. OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Fail!

You going to start regulating Mother Earth?

It doesn't "debunk" my viewpoint. My viewpoint is a fact that e-mails recovered from the anamorphic climate change scientist show their work is not only a fraud, but also a fiscal-political mechanism of the left wing. From the horse's mouth.

Happy New Year.

[MJZiggy]

Well, if Richard Muller says it's true it must be!

He believes global warming is true. That temperatures have risen over time. Specifically 1.5 degrees over 60 years. Then he specifically states that he has no idea how much of that is due to humans. OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Fail!

You going to start regulating Mother Earth?

It doesn't "debunk" my viewpoint. My viewpoint is a fact that e-mails recovered from the anamorphic climate change scientist show their work is not only a fraud, but also a fiscal-political mechanism of the left wing. From the horse's mouth.

Happy New Year.

He was specifically hired by your heroes to "prove" that climate change was false because he was an avid critic of climate change. He declared it real. Your evidence consists of emails from ONE scientist when 95% of all other scientists agree on it, now including the critic hired by the Koch brothers to review the research. Look back at the predictions scientists made 20 years ago (harsher storms, more intense weather patterns, melting ice caps) and see if they don't seem oddly familiar to you.

[Tarlam!]

Living in Australia, we were scared to death by the hole in the ozone. Scientists were predicting how bad it would become etc. Kids were no longer allowed to go outdoors during certain periods of the day at schools. It was pandemonium! But the ozone is actually recovering and faster than anyone reckoned it could!

As to the weather anomolies, there is no conclusive proof that either side is correct. There is proof that scientists are not agreed on it and never have been. This is what gives me pause to think.

[Harlan Huckleby]

As to the weather anomolies, there is no conclusive proof that either side is correct. There is proof that scientists are not agreed on it and never have been.

You are confusing the political debate with the scientific debate. The community of global warming deniars within the climatology world is much like your penis at the swimming pool - tiny and shrinking.

The argument that man-caused global warming is insignificant can and will always be made. There will always be some evidence that the changes are natural. Notice that the people most likely to be repeating those arguments also are anti-government. Coincidence? It takes an expert in the field to properly weigh the evidence.

[Tarlam!]

You are confusing the political debate with the scientific debate. (...)It takes an expert in the field to properly weigh the evidence.

No, I am not confusing anything. The evidence is weighed by qualified experts in the field. There is no collective agreement.

It is not as cut and dried as you would have me believe or have let yourself be brain-washed enough to believe, which, I am sure, is not driven by your own political side of the debate.

I admit to not understanding the correlation the data collected provides. I have to rely on what is published, which is all any of us laymen can do.

[Harlan Huckleby]

No, I am not confusing anything. The evidence is weighed by qualified experts in the field. There is no collective agreement.

It is not as cut and dried as you would have me believe or have let yourself be brain-washed enough to believe, which, I am sure, is not driven by your own political side of the debate.

I have no political side in the debate. I strongly wish that global warming was not occuring, because it is painful to deal with.

The global warming skeptics have a strong political agenda - they don't want an active government role, or economic sacrifice to address the problem. In fact, libertarians and other anti-government koooks pretty much view EVERY issue through this prism. Most people who recognize global warming have no corresponding ideological urge to empower goverment to fight the problem.

The consensus on global warming is strong. Wikipedia is a relatively neutral source of information, especially since they reference contrasting opinions, and are massively reviewed for errors. (The goofy shit that appears on Wikipedia is typically short-lived.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Scientific_consensus

[SkinBasket]

He was specifically hired by your heroes to "prove" that climate change was false because he was an avid critic of climate change. He declared it real. Your evidence consists of emails from ONE scientist when 95% of all other scientists agree on it, now including the critic hired by the Koch brothers to review the research. Look back at the predictions scientists made 20 years ago (harsher storms, more intense weather patterns, melting ice caps) and see if they don't seem oddly familiar to you.

The emails involve several lead scientists. You are confusing climate change, which is real, and unavoidable and natural, with man made global warming, which is a financial-political farce with no scientific backing. Of course, those who espouse the farce encourage the confusion, because it's all they've got.

[Tarlam!]

The consensus on global warming is strong.

So it was with the ozone devastation. The experts were wrong. The problem wasn't anywhere near as bad as advertised. Once bitten....

[retailguy]

I have no political side in the debate. I strongly wish that global warming was not occuring, because it is painful to deal with.

The global warming skeptics have a strong political agenda - they don't want an active government role, or economic sacrifice to address the problem. In fact, libertarians and other anti-government koooks pretty much view EVERY issue through this prism. Most people who recognize global warming have no corresponding ideological urge to empower goverment to fight the problem.

The consensus on global warming is strong. Wikipedia is a relatively neutral source of information, especially since they reference contrasting opinions, and are massively reviewed for errors. (The goofy shit that appears on Wikipedia is typically short-lived.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...ific_consensus

You do realize that your entire perspective, and your claims of being non-biased are based on a belief that man-made global warming is accurate, right?

Do you remember as a young boy when asbestos was touted by industry, and the scientific community as the "miracle mineral"? There were a few wacko critical scientists that were generally regarded as "nuts" who where claiming that there were risks of asbestos exposure. They were resoundly ignored until the mid 60's, when hard exposure data suggested that there was a problem, yet it still took 15 years for the "general beliefs" to change... How'd popular scientific opinion turn out there?....