>>>>>The most annoying thing about that is hearing people say Bill will really be president of Hillary wins. Of course most of the folks I hear say that also think Trump is great and global warming is fake haha...
>>>>
>>>>On the "global warming is fake".....here's a quite from Britain's Daily Mail, which actually bothered to do some research:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"the NASA press release failed to mention…that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree—or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C—several times as much."
>>>>
>>>>Think about that....the allegation that 2014 was the hottest year on record, and yet the margin for error exceeds the alleged increase by roughly 5 TIMES!!!
>>>>
>>>>Victor, the problem with the claim of global warming (and man-made climate change) is really very simple - and I challenge anyone here to dispute what I'm about to say. Climate forecasting does not have a good track record of making any type of accurate long-term predictions. The point of forecasting is really quite simple - to demonstrate some level of directional accuracy BEFORE the data comes in. That hasn't happened.
>>>>
>>>>Additionally, the temperature measurements have been a series of embarrassments for the climate change activists. I'll be more than happy to provide several links on this. Bottom line, the climate change people are guilty of wanting people to believe that temperatures largely stayed constant for thousands of years (when direct measurements weren't being taken) and suddenly started changing the 1970's when people starting paying closer attention. That's disingenuous at best. Here is one link right now about what has been dubbed "improper mixing"
>>>>
>>>>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/climate-change-endgame-in-sight.php
>>>>
>>>>Add to that, the very shaky data that man-made runaway greenhouse gases have any direct bearing on climate change. Right now a stronger theory in scientific circles is variations in solar radiation strength with the impact of fewer cosmic rays leading to fewer clouds to block out heat from the sun. This is obviously quite different than the political agendas being advanced for "man-made climate change"
>>>>
>>>>The science is definitely not 100% settled (contrary to what the president would like people to think). Right now, bottom line - there is no hard evidence in so-called "man-made climate change".
>>>
>>>The science is 100% settled among scientist and climatologist. You should spend 10 minutes and watch this: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8q3nmm/burn-noticed It's really quite funny and shows hows the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's brilliant minds at work on the subject.
>>
>>My feeling is more along the lines of the following:
>>
>>http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/e_18.html
>>
>>Climate change has become a multi billion industry where money makes the rules. I think looking at the past, is way more predictable than to listen to those scientist who base there conclusion on computer models that clearly has huge gaping holes in there. Combined with naïve ideology and profits made within this industry I can't take it serious. Too many false predictions have been made (hole in the ozon layer, acid rains, sea level rises) to take them seriously unless they build up a significant record of being right.
>>
>>Also see http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html. If NASA draws different conclusions, you really should be very careful In drawing conclusions.
>>
>>And best of all https://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/the-truth-about-the-global-warming-agenda-by-former-nasa-climatologist/
>>
>>
>>Again, it does not mean that we should not do our best to limit the amount of CO2 produced by human influence, but there is no basis for scaring people and predict doomsday.
>>
>>
>>Walter,
>
>Instead of saying what other people say that NASA says, just look at the NASA website and get the real info from NASA itself...
>
>http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
>http://climate.nasa.gov/

That 97% does not exists. Its a myth. Google on 97% of climate scientist myth and you see what I mean. It is being abused by climate activists to make their point. Some source say that the 97% is based upon fewer than 100 scientists. Moreover, there is not public qualification on exactly what they agreed upon.
Google it and you'll see.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

I had an article from NASA (directly) yesterday containing the conclusion that CO2 has far less influence on global warming that believed before. However I could not find the link today.

My stance is that we simply do not know all the factors involved in climate change. The computer models being used today are seriously crippled. There is too much we do not understand. Any scientist who makes claims that he does understand should be taken with a grain of salt. So far, if you look at the facts, the global temperature did not rise for 15 years (has been accepted by climate change acitivists as well). Also the melting icecaps do not seem to be melting and bouncing back from year to year. The prediction that in 2030 we would have no ice on the artic has been refuted as well.

Lets get real how many of the claims about global warming and climate change have been disproven? Remember acid rains? Remember global cooling in the 70-ties? The hole in the ozon layer that would expand to the whole earth and causing the earth to be inhabitable by 2010? Absurd claims of sea level risings of 3 meters by 2100?

With each and every claim the lethal tiger turned out to be a benign pussycat. Sorry I do not believe in the exaggeration of man caused climate change. Climate has changed continuously over billion years. Why would one think it now would be different? There is evidence that there were medieval times were not any colder than it is now globally... so what could have caused that and how does this fit into the last 100 years?

No-one can say for sure. One thing I do know is that there is commercial and political interests to sell climate change as a doomsday story. Sorry, but I do not buy that.

Again, what I do believe is that we should do our best to keep the earth a liveable place, but withouth fabricated facts and predictions that follow a certain agenda.

Walter,