Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[boomerangutang]

Let's not falsely attribute statements, even in jest or trying to hammer home a point.

Regardless, that poll is a sobering reminder of how out-of-touch many fundamentalist Christian Americans are. I'm an American, and it's embarrassing how embedded those silly Biblical notions can be in fluff-minded people. ....but it's no reflection on RB, and is off-topic.

[thaibeachlovers]

What you are saying just reinforces the fact there are too many people in the world, and specifically poor people that live in unsuitable areas in substandard accomodation. Of course they suffer more from adverse conditions. The long term solution is to bring in policies that reduce family size, but whether population could be reduced sufficiently to make a difference is unlikely, as zero world leaders are even talking about it. Most of the western world's leaders are even saying stupid things about needing to increase birth rates.

Anyway, if one watches "Ocean Planet", it is apparent that world fish stocks are about to decline dramatically, which will bring about mass starvation in the poorer areas, as they depend largely on fishing for their survival. The other thing that will kill large numbers of poor people is the coming crisis in fresh water availability.

Absolute nonsense - you are applying schoolboy maths to the problem.

So, what is YOUR solution to climate change?

my "solution"? only someone who has no concept of how complex the problem is would ask such a facile question.

So you have no solution?

Try to avoid the personal insults- it doesn't help your case.

Reply deleted to allow posting.

[thaibeachlovers]

The majority (of Muslims) don't wanna cut our heads off and blow us up.

It only takes a minority of hot heads to cause big problems. The majority of those of the same belief systemwill simply step away and wring their hands in meek consternation, uttering something like, 'Oh mighty Allah, where did we go wrong?'.

Saw on the news that the PM of Kiribati is going to the latest talk fest on climate change to try and save his country from disappearing under the water.

Then I got to thinking just what is it that he thinks anyone can actually do to change it? (shortened for brevity) It's hopeless.

There's a very small tourist island off the coast of Belize called Cay Caulker (pron. 'key'). I went there 25 years ago, and then went 18 yrs ago. The most recent time, they had built a steel wall around the island. Same material used for roofs. It was out in the waves, about 20 meters from the shore in low tide. It was sad to see it, because who could imagine that a wall of 2mm thick steel could keep out the force of the ocean, plus it probably played havoc on any semblance of ecological balance. I doubt that wall lasted 2 years. Please don't tell Thai engineers, as they might try building walls along Thailand's coasts (the same folks who wanted to lessen Bkk's flooding with boat propellers), plus there'd be a large amount of tea money kickbacks in purchasing that much materials.

As for 'hopeless'. Go ahead and think those thoughts. You're probably around middle age, like me, and it's natural to get cynical as one gets older. However, let's not convey too much of that to the younger generation. We brought them in to this world. We don't want to keep hammering home a message of hopelessness. They need to think there are plausible solutions, or at least glimmers of hope. I talk to youngsters about solar power, among other things. I was reading about an Indian man who is organizing poor back-woods villagers in India (mostly grandmothers) to teach them about solar. Many of his graduates are going out and doing tangibly good things, such as overseeing installations of solar.

We brought them in to this world.

Don't accuse me of that. I didn't have any children because I could see that the world was overpopulated, and that was long ago!

I am constantly boggled that people that do have children do so little to try and save their environment, usually leaving it up to other people/ the government. Pretty despicable behaviour in my mind.

I don't see any conservation related behaviour by any Thais in the town where I live, but at least Thailand isn't overpopulating itself, and I read recently they have a falling birth rate- all good.

[thaibeachlovers]

...and it's down to the Rick Bradfords of this world who twist and distort the evidence presented so much and attribute all sorts of exaggerated claptrap to the real theories and claims behind climate change.

Here are the results of RB's pseudo-scientific arguments.......

http://ncse.com/rncse/30/3/americans-scientific-knowledge-beliefs-human-evolution-year-

While I have no stick in the god vs nothing argument, I doubt anyone has a scientific reason for the existence of the universe. Did it just create itself? What caused the big bang? What existed before the big bang? What makes a collection of atoms have 'conciousness/ life'?

[thaibeachlovers]

Here are the results of RB's pseudo-scientific arguments.......

http://ncse.com/rncs...evolution-year-

Actually, I had nothing to do with that report, entertaining as it is (and nothing to do with climate change, of course).

Nor am I in any way responsible for the state of education in America.

Pure make-believe on your part.

actually I'd be surprised if you had anything to do with anything real.

You seem to like insulting people. Try giving that a rest- it doesn't help your case.

[thaibeachlovers]

If ice cover continues to lessen in the Arctic region, will deniers admit to it? No. They'll find 100 ways to distort the issue - anything but admit Arctic ice is lessening.

Don't be a chump -- the data is quite clear that Arctic ice extent is much less than it was in the 1980s, and somewhat higher than it was a few years ago.

The real idiots were those alarmists from big scientific institutions who claimed loudly that the ice was in a 'death spiral' and would be gone by several years ago. And no, they weren't joking.

Let's choose one from the vast store of Arctic fails:

Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007, so given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative. -- Professor Wieslaw Maslowski

Left/Green scientists - Always Certain, Usually Wrong.

You answered my question, thanks. It's clear that regardless of data proving warming (now and in the future), you will forever be fixated on denying there's warming.

It doesn't really matter whether people believe in it or not. What does matter is that ZERO realistic solutions have been put forward to change anything. When Japan and Germany abandon nuclear in favour of fossil fuel electricity generation it does not help the gw case.

Also, politicians have made NO significant changes in their own habits, continuing to jet off to conferences all over the world, instead of using vdo conferencing- not at all helpful in convincing anyone of the gw case.

In a Thai related idea, they could make a dent in gw by banning the fmp on Had Rin, thereby stopping thousands of bagpackers from travelling to Thailand every month .

[RickBradford]

What does matter is that ZERO realistic solutions have been put forward to change anything.

True. But here's the solution the useful idiots of the "people's" global warming "movement" want.

These wannabe Socialists hardly look like the downtrodden proletariat, do they?

[canman]

The CO2 is causing GW believers seem to rely on two basic arguements:

1) Correlation of CO2 levels with rising temperature

2) 98% of the scientists on this planet agree with them

1) Correlation does not equal causation. If it did then Margarine consumption in the US causes divorces in Maine

And Oil imports from Norway affects train car collisions

The correlation between rising CO2 and temperature has been broken over the last 15 years anyway.

2) It is debateable what percentage of scientists believe CO2 is responsible for temperature rise. What ever percentage it is does not make it true.

"In the early 1990's, one thing was fairly certain about the expansion of the Universe. It might have enough energy density to stop its expansion and recollapse, it might have so little energy density that it would never stop expanding, but gravity was certain to slow the expansion as time went on."

The vast majority of scientist in the early 1990's would have agreed with the above.

Didn't make it true however. In 1998 observations by the Hubble telescope showed that the expansion of the universe was accelerating.

[NeverSure]

...and it's down to the Rick Bradfords of this world who twist and distort the evidence presented so much and attribute all sorts of exaggerated claptrap to the real theories and claims behind climate change.

Here are the results of RB's pseudo-scientific arguments.......

http://ncse.com/rncse/30/3/americans-scientific-knowledge-beliefs-human-evolution-year-

While I have no stick in the god vs nothing argument, I doubt anyone has a scientific reason for the existence of the universe. Did it just create itself? What caused the big bang? What existed before the big bang? What makes a collection of atoms have 'conciousness/ life'?

I'm with you here, and you won't get a logical answer, either. I don't know how people can be so adamant, and even insulting of others, when we actually know so little.

When someone comes along who can tell me which came first, the chicken or the egg, I'll start paying attention.

[canuckamuck]

The rooster came first. The chicken faked it.

[NeverSure]

The rooster came first. The chicken faked it.

Post of the day.

I'm serious though. I'd like to know how both a chicken and a rooster came to be, and how that happened to be in the same place on earth so they could reproduce for the survival of the species.

How did they live long enough to develop the ability to reproduce - both of them - before they were again extinct? Evolution uses lots of time to develop its model.

There are a lot of simple but complex questions that I haven't heard the answers to, and I'm not going to get adamant or argumentative with anyone when I really believe we know so little.

[chuckd]

The rooster came first. The chicken faked it.

Post of the day.

I'm serious though. I'd like to know how both a chicken and a rooster came to be, and how that happened to be in the same place on earth so they could reproduce for the survival of the species.

How did they live long enough to develop the ability to reproduce - both of them - before they were again extinct? Evolution uses lots of time to develop its model.

There are a lot of simple but complex questions that I haven't heard the answers to, and I'm not going to get adamant or argumentative with anyone when I really believe we know so little.

And on top of that...who provided the sex education for the two chickens?

Was there some liberal educator standing around in the chicken coop to pass out brochures and put posters up?

Were there even chicken coops?

Too many questions. Perhaps the US government should give some scientific grants to answer these burning questions of the day.

[thaibeachlovers]

please excuse lack of capitals. i am typing one fingered due to fractured hand.

plenty of tv news footage of people demonstrating against climate change around the world, but i'm still waiting for someone to give a workable solution. they say things like 'we must act today, before it's too late', but they never say what we must actually do.

ironically, some of the demonstrations are in germany, lol.

[canuckamuck]

Hope you get better soon dude.

[thaibeachlovers]

Hope you get better soon dude.

thank you. my time was up on the road. had a m'bike collision, but it could easily have been soooooooooooooooooo much worse.

at the very least, i'm still walking, and computers can be operated one handed.

[lovetotravel]

I like this chart:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-1-chart-exposes-climate-science-deniers-as-frauds-2014-09-19?link=mw_home_kiosk

[thaibeachlovers]

I like this chart:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-1-chart-exposes-climate-science-deniers-as-frauds-2014-09-19?link=mw_home_kiosk

please excuse lack of capitals- i am typing with one finger due to fractured hand.

from the link

We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.”

perhaps they do agree, but i'm still waiting for a suggestion of a plan that will actually make a difference, and so far- zero!

also, how many of them have personally given up all fossil fuel use- ie no carbon fueled electricity, cars or air travel? my guess is NONE.

i saw the un Secretary-General ban ki moon giving a speech in which he claimed that a carbon neutral world would be fairer . just how out of touch with reality is he? he also thinks demonstrations will solve gw .

[boomerangutang]

please excuse lack of capitals. i am typing one fingered due to fractured hand.

plenty of tv news footage of people demonstrating against climate change around the world, but i'm still waiting for someone to give a workable solution. they say things like 'we must act today, before it's too late', but they never say what we must actually do.

ironically, some of the demonstrations are in germany, lol.

I don't claim to know specifically what they're demonstrating about, but it probably has something to do with lessening fossil fuel consumption in order to try and lessen the amount of CO2 emitted. Currently it amounts to an average of about 1 ton per person annually. And before a denier jumps up and says, "You use fossil fuels. I bet you wouldn't like to live in a world without fossil fuels!!!" Yes, I use fossil fuels, but I try to use 'em as little as reasonably possible. Example: very few jet trips per decade, No air-con, no electricity used for heating (cooking or water), use motorbike when I don't have to use car, etc. It's not a black and white situation. In other words, it's not all one way or all another way. Fossil fuels can be cut back by degrees. Just in little ol' Thailand, the amount of electricity used could be halved and no one would be worse off. I could articulate how that could be done, but I'd like to paid for it. It might be worth a few bucks, seeing how I could save Thai consumers tens of billions of baht per month in electricity expenditures.

[boomerangutang]

I like this chart:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-1-chart-exposes-climate-science-deniers-as-frauds-2014-09-19?link=mw_home_kiosk

please excuse lack of capitals- i am typing with one finger due to fractured hand.

from the link

We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.

perhaps they do agree, but i'm still waiting for a suggestion of a plan that will actually make a difference, and so far- zero!

also, how many of them have personally given up all fossil fuel use- ie no carbon fueled electricity, cars or air travel? my guess is NONE.

i saw the un Secretary-General ban ki moon giving a speech in which he claimed that a carbon neutral world would be fairer . just how out of touch with reality is he? he also thinks demonstrations will solve gw .

Remember the ozone issue of a few decades ago? Maybe you don't think that was an important issue, but many people, including scientists did. When that news was in its infancy, someone like yourself could have said, "ha ha ha, If I don't buy a can of spray paint, I can close the widening hole in the ozone, ha ha ha." Well, the campaign worked, and like most worthwhile environmental campaigns it started in the USA. Other countries woke up and realized it was an important issue, and they passed legislation to lessen sales of spray paints, and have refrigeration repairmen be more responsible about how they dispense/dispose of refridgerants. And, it made a positive difference over the ensuing years!

Regarding GW: As I mentioned above. It's not a b&w scenario. Deniers would love to see a GW demonstrator riding in a car and then scream at her: "Hey you hypocrite. You wanna lessen fossil fuel use, yet you're riding in a taxi. Omagawd!" GW activists take a more practical and mature outlook. They realize: if half the world's population cut their fossil fuel use by about half, then that would result in about 1/4 less CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year. Currently that's a lessening of about of nearly 2 billion tons. I would welcome that. Would you?

[chuckd]

Tell you what.

When Obama stops flying that 747 around the world on his endless jaunts, I will consider turning my air conditioner up to 24 at night.

Until that happens, don't count on me for any help in your crusade.

How's that for a practical and mature outlook?

[boomerangutang]

Tell you what.

When Obama stops flying that 747 around the world on his endless jaunts, I will consider turning my air conditioner up to 24 at night.

Until that happens, don't count on me for any help in your crusade.

How's that for a practical and mature outlook?

Translated: you're fixated on denying there's a GW problem.

That's like me saying: as long as there's one official in Phuket who visits bar girls, I'm not going to do anything to try and improve the girlie bar situation there.

Do you want a real answer to your question? Didn't think so.

BTW, it's not 'my crusade.' If I have a crusade, it's to try and lessen the harm against mother nature. Nature is losing every battle against our species, but it will win the war - in the long run.

[RickBradford]

I think the point that chuckd was making is that the global warming movement is rife with hypocrisy, to the extent that it is almost a hallmark of their, er, crusade. These very public actions, repeated day after day, damage not only the global warming movement (hurray) but also the broader environmental movement (boo).

The idea that the UN would put Leonardo di Caprio up to lecture a large influential audience about reducing carbon emissions shows their complete lack of self-awareness. Are we supposed to ignore his two Manhattan apartments, his beachfront estate in Malibu, and mansion in Palm Springs, his regular private jet travel and renting the fifth biggest yacht in the world from an oil billionaire?

I don't mind him having or doing those things, far from it, but pretending he's an environmental activist at the same time reveals him for what he is -- a celebrity idiot. It says nothing complimentary about the UN's climate people, either.

Then there's the guy who advertises his melting iceberg vigil on the side of his 4*4 SUV; the politicians on the boards of renewable energy companies enacting anti-fossil fuel legislation, the goverments of the Maldives and Tuvalu falsely trying to extort money from the west for causing their countries to "perish", while selling beachside land at a million euros per hectare, and let's not even mention Al Gore.

And those climate summits! Does it really take 20,000 people every few months to jet around the globe and decide what to do about the climate? Or do they just enjoy the weather, lifestyle and shopping in Rio de Janeiro, Geneva, Kyoto, Buenos Aires, Milan, Montreal, Bali, Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, Stockholm, Abu Dhabi and New York?

Some uncharitable people would say that Obama needs to keep flying around the planet, as it limits his capacity to do stupid things, but I think that as president of the US, he has the right to get around and see the sights.

What is not acceptable, to take an example, is Australia sending 114 people under Comrade Rudd to the 2009 Copenhagen summit, including Rudd's official photographer, seven media advisers, 29 staff from the climate change department, an ambassador for climate change, a special envoy for climate change, plus cooks and bottlewashers, and then declaring that it would push for "the most ambitious agreement possible" at Copenhagen - a 25 per cent reduction in carbon emissions.

As an Australian opposition spokesman said: "Kevin Rudd's mega-delegation is generating a carbon footprint visible on the moon."

Luckily, the good common sense of the Australian people saw Comrade Rudd handed his hat in very short order.

Climate hypocrisy is simply bad for the environment.

[JDGRUEN]

Weather Channel Founder John Coleman Explains Liberal Global Warming Hoax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k#t=16

[chuckd]

Tell you what.

When Obama stops flying that 747 around the world on his endless jaunts, I will consider turning my air conditioner up to 24 at night.

Until that happens, don't count on me for any help in your crusade.

How's that for a practical and mature outlook?

Translated: you're fixated on denying there's a GW problem.

That's like me saying: as long as there's one official in Phuket who visits bar girls, I'm not going to do anything to try and improve the girlie bar situation there.

Do you want a real answer to your question? Didn't think so.

BTW, it's not 'my crusade.' If I have a crusade, it's to try and lessen the harm against mother nature. Nature is losing every battle against our species, but it will win the war - in the long run.

Thanks for your somewhat silly interpretation of what you think I think.

But, since you put it so succinctly, I am certainly not convinced in the least that GW is a problem that has anything to do with mankind.

The change of the name from "global warming" to "climate change" only emphases the fact I am not the only one that believes global warming isn't happening by anything man made. The global warming fans don't believe it either, it seems.

From today's news:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upcoming Anniversary: October 1st Will Mark 18 Years of No Global Warming

September 24, 2014 - 5:21 PM

By Barbara Hollingsworth

(CNSNews.com) – According to the datasets used last year, October 1st will mark the 18th year of “no significant warming trend in surface average temperature," says Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science.

And even if the current 18-year trend were to end, it would still take nearly 25 years for average global temperature figures to reflect the change, said Michaels, who has a Ph.D. in ecological climatology and spent three decades as a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.

Sooner or later, even Al Gore and the numerous scientists, academics and politicians who agree with him that “Earth has a fever” will have to admit that their climate models predicting catastrophic global warming were off by a long shot, said Michaels, who was also a contributing editor to the United Nations’ second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

“It has to be admitted eventually that too much warming was forecast too fast. That just has to happen. You can’t go on and on and on,” he told CNSNews.com.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/upcoming-anniversary-october-1st-will-mark-18-years-no-global

[thaibeachlovers]

I like this chart:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-1-chart-exposes-climate-science-deniers-as-frauds-2014-09-19?link=mw_home_kiosk

please excuse lack of capitals- i am typing with one finger due to fractured hand.

from the link

We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.

perhaps they do agree, but i'm still waiting for a suggestion of a plan that will actually make a difference, and so far- zero!

also, how many of them have personally given up all fossil fuel use- ie no carbon fueled electricity, cars or air travel? my guess is NONE.

i saw the un Secretary-General ban ki moon giving a speech in which he claimed that a carbon neutral world would be fairer . just how out of touch with reality is he? he also thinks demonstrations will solve gw .

Remember the ozone issue of a few decades ago? Maybe you don't think that was an important issue, but many people, including scientists did. When that news was in its infancy, someone like yourself could have said, "ha ha ha, If I don't buy a can of spray paint, I can close the widening hole in the ozone, ha ha ha." Well, the campaign worked, and like most worthwhile environmental campaigns it started in the USA. Other countries woke up and realized it was an important issue, and they passed legislation to lessen sales of spray paints, and have refrigeration repairmen be more responsible about how they dispense/dispose of refridgerants. And, it made a positive difference over the ensuing years!

Regarding GW: As I mentioned above. It's not a b&w scenario. Deniers would love to see a GW demonstrator riding in a car and then scream at her: "Hey you hypocrite. You wanna lessen fossil fuel use, yet you're riding in a taxi. Omagawd!" GW activists take a more practical and mature outlook. They realize: if half the world's population cut their fossil fuel use by about half, then that would result in about 1/4 less CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year. Currently that's a lessening of about of nearly 2 billion tons. I would welcome that. Would you?

the ozone situation was different in that they knew for a fact what caused it- not supposition- and manufacturers stopped using the chemical. it wasn't stopped by buying less spray cans.

gw hypocrites- leonardo di caprio is getting a lot of stick for using private jets and telling eveyone else to cut back.

- the gw demonstrators that used loads of disposable plastic food containers and left 7 tons of rubbish after their demonstration in new york.

They realize: if half the world's population cut their fossil fuel use by about half,

the problem is that the world isn't going to cut back their fossil fuel use, and no one has come up with a means of helping them do so.

[thaibeachlovers]

Tell you what.

When Obama stops flying that 747 around the world on his endless jaunts, I will consider turning my air conditioner up to 24 at night.

Until that happens, don't count on me for any help in your crusade.

How's that for a practical and mature outlook?

Translated: you're fixated on denying there's a GW problem.

That's like me saying: as long as there's one official in Phuket who visits bar girls, I'm not going to do anything to try and improve the girlie bar situation there.

Do you want a real answer to your question? Didn't think so.

BTW, it's not 'my crusade.' If I have a crusade, it's to try and lessen the harm against mother nature. Nature is losing every battle against our species, but it will win the war - in the long run.

Nature is losing every battle against our species, but it will win the war - in the long run.

we agree on that. gaia is fighting back- eg ebola, and mankind if very good at killing each other, which helps.

[boomerangutang]

They realize: if half the world's population cut their fossil fuel use by about half,

the problem is that the world isn't going to cut back their fossil fuel use, and no one has come up with a means of helping them do so.

There are steps being made in the direction of cutting back fossil fuel use. Granted, it's a big topic, because fossil fuels are so prevalent. It's also not a b&w issue. In other words, their use won't be stopped in a month or a year or 20 years. But as a process, there are some bright spots. For example: alternative and renewable energy generation is gaining momentum. There's a guy in India who has initiated a program of educating poor outlying villages to pump water and with solar, etc. If left up to the status quo, they'd want to continue to string thousands of miles of thick copper/aluminum wires to remote villages. there are myriad other efforts underway to lessen fossil fuel usage. Most appear miniscule when taken individually, but collectively they are making a dent for the better.

[thaibeachlovers]

They realize: if half the world's population cut their fossil fuel use by about half,

the problem is that the world isn't going to cut back their fossil fuel use, and no one has come up with a means of helping them do so.

There are steps being made in the direction of cutting back fossil fuel use. Granted, it's a big topic, because fossil fuels are so prevalent. It's also not a b&w issue. In other words, their use won't be stopped in a month or a year or 20 years. But as a process, there are some bright spots. For example: alternative and renewable energy generation is gaining momentum. There's a guy in India who has initiated a program of educating poor outlying villages to pump water and with solar, etc. If left up to the status quo, they'd want to continue to string thousands of miles of thick copper/aluminum wires to remote villages. there are myriad other efforts underway to lessen fossil fuel usage. Most appear miniscule when taken individually, but collectively they are making a dent for the better.

electricity is good. solar will never provide enough at the present level of technology to sustain our way of life. electricity generated by nuclear does not put carbon into the atmosphere- good result all round. just need some clever brains to design the safety systems.

nb, there has never been a nuclear accident on any us nuke powered aircraft carrier, so it can be done safely.

[thaibeachlovers]

i have yet to hear any climate scientist come up with a way to stop those pesky volcanoes putting pollutants into the air, lol.

[RickBradford]

Happy Anniversary! The stop in global warming has come of age -- 18 today (well, beginning of October)

This will not be published in the mainstream press, which has hitched its fading wagon to climate alarmism. Instead, you have to go and read what the scientists say.

The Earth’s temperature has "plateaued" and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. "That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on," Christy said.

None of the climate alarmists came anywhere predicting this, and one of their most prominent characters admitted that theory would be badly compromised if such an event occurred.

"Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried." - Phil Jones, University of East Anglia 7 May 2009.

Also sure that the temperature would continue its relentless climb was Benjamin Santer.

"Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature."

Well, those human effects are now out there for all to see, or rather not see, and the temperature plateau is now old enough to vote, join the army, pay its taxes. Or perhaps go out and buy a car.

A climate alarmist walks into a bar: "I'll have a pint of ... ... ... ... ... ... bitter."

Barman: "Why the long pause?"

Alarmist bursts into tears.