>>>>>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/

Found it:

What do you make out the following from NASA?

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/


Qoute

Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space .

End Quote

I'm not pretending that I completely understand how to view this in perspective to global warming, however it does should that CO2 is more than what people let us believe. We are told stories that CO2 is bad, but we simply could not live without it. In fact, as the sun ages it is estimated that the depletion of CO2 in our atmosphere is threatening live on earth.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth

You see... this is complicated and my take on this is that its way to arrogant to think that we currently understand our climate. Hell climate has been changing for billions of years and we claim to understand it by less than 50 years of observation? I do not think so. And the facts do not point into that direction either: Too many false and/or exaggerated claims have been made in the past about the climate in the 21st century that turned out to be false.

Walter,