Climate Change Realists

[mamooth]

No... that's YOU, you insipid little pissant.

Everyone in the world can't be part of a cult. By definition, the mainstream -- which is what we rational people are -- can't be a cult. Cult's are always tiny groups on the fringe of normal society, like you and your right-wing-fringe extremist political cult.

Sulfur dioxide is a completely different thing. Carbon dioxide is NOT a POLLUTANT! PERIOD!

Oh, look. You're changing the topic after you got humiliated. First you said pollution taxes can't work, and when I pointed out they certainly do work, you retreated into saying CO2 isn't a pollutant.

The only thing I am preaching is for people to disavow any and all association with you fucking nutbags

It's not nuts to want to preserve the world from fanatics like you, who would have humanity shivering in the dark after the fossil fuels run out.

Well, no we WON'T under my plan. Fossil fuels are not going to run out anytime soon.

They'll just get more and more expensive, so the poor won't be able to afford them.

In the meantime, they are essential for poor and developing nations.

No, renewables are now cheaper. They don't require the construction of a grid, which is very expensive to build, very expensive to maintain, and which makes for an easy target by any insurgent groups in the area. And renewables don't require the constant import of fossil fuels, which would leave the locals at the mercy of the importers.

But then, that's what you want, the developing world under the heel of the fossil fuel interests.

YOU are the immoral bastards! YOU want to relegate humanity to the stone age! And you're going to sit here and lie through your shit-stained teeth night and day, 24/7/365, pushing this kook theory narrative that has been debunked time and time again.

People like you would declare developing societies must install land line phones, for the sake of progress, and that anyone opposing that idea hates the developing world.

People like us agree it's a good idea to skip landlines and just jump straight to cellular phones or satellite phones, the most effective solution.

 

[Boss]

Everyone in the world can't be part of a cult. By definition, the mainstream -- which is what we rational people are -- can't be a cult. Cult's are always tiny groups on the fringe of normal society, like you and your right-wing-fringe extremist political cult.

Your AGW nonsense is NOT a mainstream view. Even if it were, consensus isn't science. Nothing in the scientific method about popularity of an idea making it valid.

Oh, look. You're changing the topic after you got humiliated. First you said pollution taxes can't work, and when I pointed out they certainly do work, you retreated into saying CO2 isn't a pollutant.

CO2 isn't a pollutant. Sorry you are incapable of passing a 7th grade science test.

My point is much more complex. If your claims about AGW are true, reducing CO2 through some onerous tax scheme is simply not going to be enough to reverse what you claim is happening. While we have industrial methods of reducing toxic gases like sulfur dioxide, there isn't a suitable method of substantially reducing carbon dioxide. It's one of the most abundant natural compounds in the universe. AND... reductions aren't going to change what you claim is happening.

Now this is IMPORTANT... pay attention and let me educate you. Thermodynamics (heat) causes the bonding of covalent elements like oxygen and carbon to form CO2. Humans simply can't do anything about that, it's just a fact of nature. We can stop doing things that involve processes where CO2 is created but CO2 will still be created through natural means and inadvertently, through basic human activities. Just breathing produces CO2.

Now you can cherry pick certain industries which generate CO2 but you will barely make a dent in the amount being created every single day around the globe. So this notion that you're going to change what you claim is happening in the atmosphere due to CO2 by going after certain industries is simply idiocy on a grand scale.

The #1 culprit of man made CO2 is burning of fossil fuels. We're NOT going to stop burning fossil fuels. I know that causes activist snowflakes like you to draw up in the fetal position and suck your thumb but you need to accept reality. Banning the burning of fossil fuels would cause the starvation and death of billions of humans worldwide. It would cripple economies of almost every second or third world country and it wouldn't be a picnic for first-world countries such as our own. Furthermore, you're never going to convince the Chinese or Russians to stop burning fossil fuels, so CO2 is going to be produced whether you like that or not.

The #2 culprit of man made CO2 is production of concrete. Tell me, how do we eliminate concrete from emerging civilizations? Do you have a viable alternative to concrete? No... you don't.

It's not nuts to want to preserve the world from fanatics like you, who would have humanity shivering in the dark after the fossil fuels run out.

Dear Jesus! YOU ARE ADVOCATING NOT BURNING FOSSIL FUELS! Forget about "when they run out" ...you want to have people shiver in the dark right now! All for some kakamamie idea you can change the climate! You can't even fucking predict the climate, much less, change it!

Again, in order to reverse what you claim is happening, seriously draconian measures will need to be taken and it will plunge mankind back into the stone age... and even then, CO2 will still happen because of thermodynamics in a world with carbon and oxygen atoms, it is inevitable.

No, renewables are now cheaper.

Sorry, you're talking about an industry I happen to be closely involved with. I am part owner of a renewable energy company. No, it's NOT cheaper. It can be more economical in certain areas but it requires a huge investment which developing nations simply don't have. So this is just total and absolute bullshit.

 

[SSDD]

Everyone in the world can't be part of a cult. By definition, the mainstream -- which is what we rational people are -- can't be a cult. Cult's are always tiny groups on the fringe of normal society, like you and your right-wing-fringe extremist political cult.

Alas hairball, you just can't seem to speak without being wrong. The fact is that the consensus is damned near always wrong...especially where new science is concerned, and very often when old science is the issue.

Take these issues for example...they were mainstream science...the consensus view...and most people in the world would have agreed with them till they didn't. Anyone who relies on the wisdom of the crowd is a fool....and that just about describes all of you warmer wack jobs....

• saccharin causes cancer in humans
• dietary fiber appeared to reduced the incidence of colon cancer.
• agents found to cause cancer in animals should be considered suspect human carcinogens
• fusion energy reactors would produce more energy than it consumed within five years
• acid rain is destroying lakes and forests
• right after the UK left the european union, stock p[rices would collapse
• stomach ulcers are caused by stress
• the international geological community’s reaction to Wegener’s theory was militantly hostile.
• eugenics was once mainstream science
• bleeding people to remove ill humors from their systems
• the geocentric theory of the solar system
• diets rich in processed foods and fats lead to heart disease
• luminiferous aether

hell, until very recently the consensus view, and what most people with any education at all would tell you was that the greeks invented trigonometry...guess what?...they didn't. The Babylonians had it worked out 1500 years earlier and they were better at it than us...so much better in fact, that it could change the way we do the math. Chalk up one more fail for the consensus.

And the list could go on and on and on and include just about any topic you care to name.

The crowd is a fool and anyone who points to the crowd's opinion as evidence of anything, or as an argument that she must be right because she agrees with the crowd is a top shelf fool.

 

[mamooth]

Alas hairball, you just can't seem to speak without being wrong. The fact is that the consensus is damned near always wrong..

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

What a 'tard. Each time I think that rage-cuck SSDD can't get dumber, he outdoes himself.

That's right, loon. All the smart people are wrong, and you babbling idiots with your conspiracy retardation are the only ones on the planet who know the RealTruth. Spoken like a true cultist.

Take these issues for example...they were mainstream science.

No, most of them weren't mainstream science. And the ones that changed, they changed almost instantly when better evidence was discovered. If your liars' cult had any good evidence, the science would change instantly. But you don't. You have no evidence at all aside from faked evidence, and that doesn't count.

Sucks to be you. You've spent decades proving that you're a fraud, so the whole world now just automatically and correctly assumes you're a fraud. You'll need to spend decades _not_ being a rage-fraud to repair your reputation. I suggest you start now. If you keep it up for 20 years, someone might start paying attention to you.

So, scream and cry all you want, but your tiny fringe political-religious clique of babbling vicious retards is a cult.. The rest of planet earth is _not_ a cult. The rest of planet earth is normal people who laugh at cultists. You'll have to learn how deal with that, cult-boi.

 

[mamooth]

Your AGW nonsense is NOT a mainstream view.

A Scientologist would tell me that he's not a cultist too, and that his views are the true mainstream. You cultists are all alike.

Even if it were, consensus isn't science. Nothing in the scientific method about popularity of an idea making it valid.

True. The facts and data are what make AGW theory correct. The vast global consensus against just means you're defined as the cultist.

Now this is IMPORTANT... pay attention and let me educate you.

A helpful hint: In order to pull of the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. You can't just bluff and pretend, because people see right through it. That's why I can pull it off, but you can't.

Now you can cherry pick certain industries which generate CO2 but you will barely make a dent in the amount being created every single day around the globe.

As that's laughably wrong, all conclusions you draw from it are also laughably wrong.

The #1 culprit of man made CO2 is burning of fossil fuels. We're NOT going to stop burning fossil fuels.

Not immediately, but we will gradually. It's already begun. Fossil fuels are finite, hence humanity _will_ eventually stop burning them, one way or another. Your claim that it won't happen is logic-defying and completely delusional.

Banning the burning of fossil fuels would cause the starvation and death of billions of humans worldwide.

Good thing nobody said to do that, eh?

Oh, I see. You couldn't support your shit science and bizarre logic, so you're deflecting by making up a strawman about how someone wants to immediately ban all fossil fuels. Golly. How ... boring.

Dear Jesus! YOU ARE ADVOCATING NOT BURNING FOSSIL FUELS! Forget about "when they run out" ...you want to have people shiver in the dark right now!

No, we don't. I've never said or implied that. Nobody has ever said or implied that.

As you're just making up crazy stories now, what's the point in talking to you? After all, it's pretty much a given you're going to just make up more crazy shit. And demonstrating that is a win for me.

 

[Boss]

No, most of them weren't mainstream science. And the ones that changed, they changed almost instantly when better evidence was discovered. If your liars' cult had any good evidence, the science would change instantly. But you don't. You have no evidence at all aside from faked evidence, and that doesn't count.

This is just not true. I've posted about this before, but Ignaz Semmelweis was a 19th century doctor who discovered there was a significant decrease in patient deaths if physicians simply washed their hands between digging around in cadavers and operating on live subjects. You see, the modern mainstream consensus was, doctor's hands were special and it was an insult to suggest they needed washing. So Ignaz went around the medical community showing his evidence but no one would listen. He became more and more unhinged that no one would take his evidence seriously. He became so agitated that people started saying... he's crazy! He has lost his marbles! They locked the man up after about 10 years of his trying to get them to listen. Put him away in the nut house where he spent about another 10 years before dying. Now.... Jump ahead 20 years... low and behold, they realized he was right! For nearly 40 years, it was obvious by the findings of Semmelweis that hand washing was important, yet it simply didn't conform to mainstream consensus.

There are countless such incidents. Louis Pasteur was nearly run out of France and sentenced to heresy for suggesting small living organisms were living inside of people and killing them. How absurd, people scoffed. At the turn of the 20th century, a couple of physicists suggested the universe had not always existed in a "steady state", which had been the mainstream consensus for a century or more. They were mocked and ridiculed, their kooky theory was dubbed "The Big Bang!" Even Albert Einstein didn't believe them. Isaac Newton's theory of light and color was panned by the Royal Society of Science because.... everyone just knew that white light was pure! None of these things just instantly became accepted as soon as evidence came to light. In some cases, like with Semmelweis, it took decades.

It's almost comical that you are claiming WE are the cultists with fake and fraudulent evidence. I guess you need to Google "Climategate" or "Hockey Stick Graph"? You've literally been caught red handed, fudging the data and lamenting how it's a travesty you can't explain the hiatus in global warming for 17 years... aka: The Pause. IF your claims were true, there shouldn't be a pause and you certainly wouldn't need to fudge data.

 

[fncceo]

What can we actually do about that?

The solution is obvious ... give unlimited power and all the nation's wealth to politicians and bureaucrats who know how to care for us and only have our best interest in mind.

 

[Boss]

Good thing nobody said to do that, eh?

Oh, I see. You couldn't support your shit science and bizarre logic, so you're deflecting by making up a strawman about how someone wants to immediately ban all fossil fuels. Golly. How ... boring.

But that's the thing. This is my whole argument. If CO2 levels are dangerously high and it's causing catastrophic global warming, the ONLY way we resolve this is to immediately stop burning fossil fuels and manufacturing concrete. Then we have to pray that nature helps us out and begins to mitigate the damage we've caused over time, before it's too late. These stupid emotive initiatives to reduce CO2 a little here and there isn't going to change chemistry or the effects of what you claim is happening.

If you are filling your bathtub and it's about to overflow and cause a catastrophe, simply turning the faucet down a little isn't going to prevent catastrophe. You've got to turn the faucet off entirely.

Here is another little detail I bet you don't know because you are really dumb. CO2 levels vary greatly all over the planet and they continuously rise and fall dramatically with the seasons. You see a figure like 400 ppm and you assume that all the atmosphere over all the planet is somewhere around 400 ppm... it's simply not. It depends on where you are, what time of year it is, what layer of the atmosphere you are in and about a hundred other assorted variables. 400 ppm is merely an aggregate average from monitoring stations around the globe. These locations have changed, accuracy has changed, methods of measuring are different. So it's like trying to determine the average temperature of the oceans... you can guestimate but you'll never be able to accurately define it because it's impossible to measure the entire ocean at once.

 

[SSDD]

That's right, loon. All the smart people are wrong, and you babbling idiots with your conspiracy retardation are the only ones on the planet who know the RealTruth. Spoken like a true cultist.

Guess you crazy cat ladies don't have much time to pay attention to history...or see history in context...you are to involved in your religion. The sad fact is that "all the smart" people have been wrong far more often than they have been right.

That is why I said that anyone who relies, or depends on the wisdom of the crowd is a fool. The provable, dependable, repeatable science that we know today was not discovered by the crowd...it was brought to us by outliers...people who the crowd of the time disdained...the frontrunners of the crowd produce nothing more than something for the rest of the crowd to follow...you are a follower hairball...alas, not bright enough to think for yourself. The idea of people thinking for themselves terrifies people like you.

 

[SSDD]

True. The facts and data are what make AGW theory correct. The vast global consensus against just means you're defined as the cultist.

Really? Then I challenge you to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability...just one. If such a piece of evidence were in existence, you would have it handy to slap me down with...but instead, you will make the same false claim that you and yours always make...that the evidence has been provided already...when you know it hasn't...or maybe you are so stupid you believe the lie that it has.

The bottom line is that you won't slap me down with that single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variability....you will have some excuse and why is that?...because no such evidence exists...so your claim that the facts and data are what make AGW true is just one more lie on a vast ocean of lies.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The solution is to plant grass (and trees)!

If you ever notice, warming alarmists never use grass in their C02 absorbance charts, because it absorbs 400% more C02 than the highest-absorbing plant they list.

 

[SSDD]

Good thing nobody said to do that, eh?

Oh, I see. You couldn't support your shit science and bizarre logic, so you're deflecting by making up a strawman about how someone wants to immediately ban all fossil fuels. Golly. How ... boring.

But that's the thing. This is my whole argument. If CO2 levels are dangerously high and it's causing catastrophic global warming, the ONLY way we resolve this is to immediately stop burning fossil fuels and manufacturing concrete. Then we have to pray that nature helps us out and begins to mitigate the damage we've caused over time, before it's too late. These stupid emotive initiatives to reduce CO2 a little here and there isn't going to change chemistry or the effects of what you claim is happening.

If you are filling your bathtub and it's about to overflow and cause a catastrophe, simply turning the faucet down a little isn't going to prevent catastrophe. You've got to turn the faucet off entirely.

Here is another little detail I bet you don't know because you are really dumb. CO2 levels vary greatly all over the planet and they continuously rise and fall dramatically with the seasons. You see a figure like 400 ppm and you assume that all the atmosphere over all the planet is somewhere around 400 ppm... it's simply not. It depends on where you are, what time of year it is, what layer of the atmosphere you are in and about a hundred other assorted variables. 400 ppm is merely an aggregate average from monitoring stations around the globe. These locations have changed, accuracy has changed, methods of measuring are different. So it's like trying to determine the average temperature of the oceans... you can guestimate but you'll never be able to accurately define it because it's impossible to measure the entire ocean at once.

You really can't get through to the crazy cat lady with fact, or logic, or reason. She is impervious.....a zealot...an activist, an extremist....a nut.

She is a believer, not based on any scientific evidence, but because of her political affiliations. To demonstrate that this is true, ask her for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidnence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....hell ask any of them for it and you will get one of two replies....1) a claim that the evidence has already been presented and that the can't be bothered with showing it to you or 2) some bit of data that shows that the climate changes with an assumption that we are the cause tacked on.

 

[SSDD]

The solution is to plant grass (and trees)!

If you ever notice, warming alarmists never use grass in their C02 absorbance charts, because it absorbs 400% more C02 than the highest-absorbing plant they list.

Yeah...a while back some AGW wackos plowed up prairie grass and planted trees to reduce CO2...not having the first idea that the prairie grass was a far more efficient absorber of CO2 than trees...chalk up one more unintended consequence to the kings of unintended consequences.

 

[mamooth]

You see, the modern mainstream consensus was, doctor's hands were special and it was an insult to suggest they needed washing.

And that was superstition, being it had no science backing it up.

You deniers need to stop pretending that superstition is science. But then, superstition is all that your denier cult has, so of course you need to pretend superstition is science. You deniers essentially are the doctors who said they didn't have to wash their hands, despite the evidence, solely because you believe that you've been granted a special exemption from reality.

It's almost comical that you are claiming WE are the cultists with fake and fraudulent evidence.

If you deniers don't want to be classified by the world as frauds, crying about how you've been busted for fraud so often isn't the way to do it. Admitting to your past fraud, apologizing for it and pledging to cease your fraud would be the way to do it.

I guess you need to Google "Climategate" or "Hockey Stick Graph"?

No, no, that's not ceasing your fraud, that's compounding it. Both of those are prominent examples of deniers being busted for fraud, dishonesty and corruption..

You've literally been caught red handed, fudging the data and lamenting how it's a travesty you can't explain the hiatus in global warming for 17 years...

And more open fraud from you, this time by pushing a fraudulent "hiatus" that never happened. Do you see a "hiatus" here? Nobody does. It never existed. You're embarrassing yourself by pushing such a lame fraud. If you're going to fake it, at least put some effort into it.

aka: The Pause. IF your claims were true, there shouldn't be a pause and you certainly wouldn't need to fudge data.

Again, you're like a Scientologist screaming that the rest of the world is lying about Scientology for nefarious purposes. To those outside of the cult, it just looks crazy. The fact that the Scientologist actually believes in his conspiracy theories doesn't make them any less crazy and fraudulent.

 

[mamooth]

The solution is to plant grass (and trees)!

No, it's not. It helps a little, but it doesn't even come close to solving the problem.

When a third of the population of the globe died from plague and old world diseases in the new world, vast areas of farmland went back to forest and jungle. That dropped CO2 levels by about 7 ppm.

That is, if we depopulate the world and let abandoned land go back to nature, it would cancel out two years of emissions from burning fossil fuels. Sure, the rather genocidal deniers would no doubt consider that to be a worthy tradeoff, but not the normal people.

 

[mamooth]

But that's the thing. This is my whole argument. If CO2 levels are dangerously high and it's causing catastrophic global warming, the ONLY way we resolve this is to immediately stop burning fossil fuels and manufacturing concrete.

That's a crazy claim. Have fun with your strawman, as you appear to be the only person who believes it.

Then we have to pray that nature helps us out and begins to mitigate the damage we've caused over time, before it's too late.

Praying to Mother Gaia to save us, while clearly encouraged by your cult, is not good science.

These stupid emotive initiatives to reduce CO2 a little here and there isn't going to change chemistry or the effects of what you claim is happening.

That's based on your misunderstanding of how equilibrium systems work.

If you are filling your bathtub and it's about to overflow and cause a catastrophe, simply turning the faucet down a little isn't going to prevent catastrophe. You've got to turn the faucet off entirely.

No. Your analogy is wrong. The correct analogy would be more like a bathtub with the drain partially open. At full flow, the tub will overflow, but if you simply decrease the flow rate in, the level will stabilize.

Here is another little detail I bet you don't know because you are really dumb. CO2 levels vary greatly all over the planet and they continuously rise and fall dramatically with the seasons.

Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. Look it up, try to understand how it applies to you.

You see a figure like 400 ppm and you assume that all the atmosphere over all the planet is somewhere around 400 ppm... it's simply not. It depends on where you are, what time of year it is, what layer of the atmosphere you are in and about a hundred other assorted variables. 400 ppm is merely an aggregate average from monitoring stations around the globe. These locations have changed, accuracy has changed, methods of measuring are different. So it's like trying to determine the average temperature of the oceans... you can guestimate but you'll never be able to accurately define it because it's impossible to measure the entire ocean at once.

It's funny when you try. And fail. CO2 measurements are taken around the globe, in areas of well-mixed atmosphere away from any significant CO2 sources and sinks. And it's the trend that's looked at, so any short-term noise won't matter.

Was there any purpose behind that flailing, except to muddy the waters by pushing a fraudulent claim that we don't really know CO2 levels?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You see, the modern mainstream consensus was, doctor's hands were special and it was an insult to suggest they needed washing.

And that was superstition, being it had no science backing it up.

You deniers need to stop pretending that superstition is science. But then, superstition is all that your denier cult has, so of course you need to pretend superstition is science. You deniers essentially are the doctors who said they didn't have to wash their hands, despite the evidence, solely because you believe that you've been granted a special exemption from reality.

It's almost comical that you are claiming WE are the cultists with fake and fraudulent evidence.

If you deniers don't want to be classified by the world as frauds, crying about how you've been busted for fraud so often isn't the way to do it. Admitting to your past fraud, apologizing for it and pledging to cease your fraud would be the way to do it.

I guess you need to Google "Climategate" or "Hockey Stick Graph"?

No, no, that's not ceasing your fraud, that's compounding it. Both of those are prominent examples of deniers being busted for fraud, dishonesty and corruption..

You've literally been caught red handed, fudging the data and lamenting how it's a travesty you can't explain the hiatus in global warming for 17 years...

And more open fraud from you, this time by pushing a fraudulent "hiatus" that never happened. Do you see a "hiatus" here? Nobody does. It never existed. You're embarrassing yourself by pushing such a lame fraud. If you're going to fake it, at least put some effort into it.

aka: The Pause. IF your claims were true, there shouldn't be a pause and you certainly wouldn't need to fudge data.

Again, you're like a Scientologist screaming that the rest of the world is lying about Scientology for nefarious purposes. To those outside of the cult, it just looks crazy. The fact that the Scientologist actually believes in his conspiracy theories doesn't make them any less crazy and fraudulent.

Any idiot can change the spatial resolution of two items and make it appear to correlate.. But then Correlation does not imply causation.. You need physically observed empirical evidence which proves that.. Where is it?

 

[Marion Morrison]

The solution is to plant grass (and trees)!

No, it's not. It helps a little, but it doesn't even come close to solving the problem.

When a third of the population of the globe died from plague and old world diseases in the new world, vast areas of farmland went back to forest and jungle. That dropped CO2 levels by about 7 ppm.

That is, if we depopulate the world and let abandoned land go back to nature, it would cancel out two years of emissions from burning fossil fuels. Sure, the rather genocidal deniers would no doubt consider that to be a worthy tradeoff, but not the normal people.

What an Agenda 21 rube.

"depopulate the world" GFY.

Way to be a globalist lemming-shill.

What a maroon!

 

[Boss]

And that was superstition, being it had no science backing it up.

This was before scientific discovery of bacteria. Again, when a scientist named Louis Pasteur discovered bacteria, they nearly ran the man out of France and accused him of heresy. My point is to give you examples of science confronting popular consensus. So you want an example of new science confronting old scientific consensus? Okay....

Isaac Newton's Principia. It was published in 1687 and it completely contradicted the 2,000 year old science presented by Aristotle and others regarding laws of motion and gravity. It wasn't until the early 1700s that it was widely accepted by the scientific community and eventually became known as the most profound revolution in the history of science.

Albert Einstein's Theory of General and Special Relativity. His work superseded the 200-year-old theories espoused by Newton. His theories were widely challenged, most contentiously by some. The man had some balls to contradict Newton! Special relativity was published in 1905 but it wasn't accepted in the science community until around 1920. General relativity was published between 1912-1916 but wasn't entirely validated until the 1960s.

You want MORE examples? Because I can tell you about heliocentricity and how it took many years to get that idea off the launch pad. Speaking of launch pads, we can discuss Wernher von Braun and his wild and crazy rocket theories. There have been countless scientists who've challenged conventional wisdom of the times. In fact, I would argue this is the very spirit of scientific discovery. If we never challenged what is currently believed to be true, we'd still reside on a flat earth.

 

[Boss]

And more open fraud from you, this time by pushing a fraudulent "hiatus" that never happened. Do you see a "hiatus" here? Nobody does. It never existed.

Except, we have actual documents from actual climate scientists who admit there was a pause. This is why you changed from calling it "global warming" to "climate change." The Internet is pretty cool... you can find reams of information explaining this hiatus all kinds of ways by your very own climate change advocates. That's interesting... they spent all that time and energy trying to debunk something that (according to you) never happened.