By For those that haven’t noticed there has been an ongoing debate about global warming and ClimateGate on this thread here. For those that make excuses for the ClimateGate scientists Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at Berkeley, explains Climategate’s “hide the decline” scandal and the corruption of global warming science:
For people that defend the ClimateGate scientists it is pretty clear what they defend and it is not science.
2:28 am on April 3rd, 2011 1
You do realize that the video clearly states that Prof. Mueller believes that CO2 causes considerable global warming, right? In his own words:
"Carbon dioxide comprises only 380 parts per million of the air that we breathe, yet this trace gas is the primary source of carbon for plants, and thus for our food. But it is also one of today's villains. Because carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the earth that would otherwise escape into space, an oversupply of the gas enhances the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect. The burning of fossil fuels and tropical rainforests has raised atmospheric carbon dioxide by about 20 percent since 1958 (when careful measurements began), and perhaps by as much as 35 percent since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And while you've probably heard it before, it bears repeating: The United States, with about 4.6 percent of the world's population, is responsible for about 40 percent of fossil fuel emissions worldwide. That disproportionate fraction is partly a result of our great economy and productivity—but is also due to our great inefficiency, which is in turn abetted by low oil prices. "
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/27-Alaska_is_Melti…
2:44 am on April 3rd, 2011 2
Once again you won't address the issue at hand, the professor clearly shows that the ClimateGate scientists were manipulating data. It is irrefutable. Since the professor is a global warming believer you can't explain this away as him being a shill for the oil companies or some other nonsense commonly used to discredit people skeptical of the global warming theology.
Also your link is from 2004 and the professor said in the video that he is in the process of leading a group to recheck all the data because the data he was using before was from these scientists.
3:11 am on April 3rd, 2011 3
#2,
"It is irrefutable."
Is it?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Muller-Misinforma…
In any case, here's his latest quote:
"We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups. … I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought."
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimo…
In other words, he rechecked the data and you're wrong.
3:28 am on April 3rd, 2011 4
"Since the professor is a global warming believer you can’t explain this away as him being a shill for the oil companies or some other nonsense commonly used to discredit people skeptical of the global warming theology."
Check his testimony for the list of whom he got funding from. See a familiar name in there? Their start scientist is now backing the findings of "the other group". Boy must they feel sorry they gave him so much money.
3:28 am on April 3rd, 2011 5
Correction, "their star scientist".
5:49 am on April 3rd, 2011 6
Personally, I really don't care if "global warming" is real (which it isn't).
7:55 am on April 3rd, 2011 7
Global Warming Believers,
If you want me and others to believe with you, answer the following questions with absolutely no bullshyt.
1. Unlike in other sciences, why do global warming scientists hide their data and methods, conspire to keep it hidden, and conspire to stop others from questioning their science?
2. Why do none of the people who push Manmade Global Warming live their lives like they actually believe in global warming… and in many cases their carbon footprint is actually much larger than average and much, much larger than necessary?
3. What real steps have you taken to reduce your carbon footprint. Don't try to pass off conservation and recycling actions, which many responsible people do in the interest of obvious environmental concerns. Give us actions that specifically are designed to reduce your carbon footprint and prove you truly believe and are as alarmed as you want others to be.
Waiting.
8:53 am on April 3rd, 2011 8
Professor Muller clearly said in the video he could care less about the "trick". He cared about hide the decline. And he clearly showed that these scientists selectively used data to create the hockey stick graph. Your own Skeptical Scientist link said this about the hockey stick:
Muller's graph with the raw data shows that the globe has still warmed but not the dramatic hockey stick. The ClimateGate scientists wanted a hockey stick graph and found the data that would give them that. How you can't see that they manipulated data to create the hockey stick graph is beyond me when even your own link says they are being rightfully criticized for doing so.
As far as Professor Muller his testimony is filled with many qualifiers as well as respect for the work of skeptics like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre. Muller in the testimony clearly stated, "Berkeley Earth hopes to complete its analysis including systematic bias avoidance in the next few weeks." He then goes on to explain what they are doing to correct bias in the temperature data. So in other words they haven't finished going through the data sets I wouldn't expect them to have completed their review in such a short time anyway. The data they have to sift through is vast. So in other words you are wrong again.
Overall, there is really nothing new in the testimony and Anthony Watts and others have already responded to the testimony. Another response here. Professor Muller seems like an honest scientist and a collaboration between him and guys like McIntyre and Watts may actually lead to some good science instead of the sensational science given to the public from much of the global warming clergy.
8:59 am on April 3rd, 2011 9
I have a solution: All those that believe man is evil and hurts the planet should find a humane way to end their lives—for the good of the planet. If that is not an option, at least, for the good of the planet, do not reproduce. Hey! It's for the Planet! You do love the planet, now don't you?
Oh and, stop feeding the hungry. Let them go. For the planet! Mass bombing of China (no friend of the Planet) might also be in order. Come on, lets save the planet!
9:36 am on April 3rd, 2011 10
#8,
Are you familiar with the term "cognitive dissonance"?
#9,
Yes, Earth is overpopulated. How about investing in programs that promote birth control in developing countries instead?
Stop feeding the hungry?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKNoJ2BzSRU
11:44 am on April 3rd, 2011 11
@9,
But you see there in lies the problem. They desire to be the choosers of the slain and not the ones actually slain. They want ~you~, the other, to give up technology and live in third world conditions. They will find some way to justify their own lifestyle. After all it wouldn't do for the chosen to have to give up their privilege.
The data used by the IPCC was found to be suspect shortly after the report was published. That they claimed "consensus" was laughable, there are many in the field who dispute and disagree with the findings of the IPCC. The scientists involved blacklisted and scandalized anyone who disagreed with them, it was all rather sick.
12:12 pm on April 3rd, 2011 12
11 That is what the Liberals do. They are great people, as long as you agree with them. But if you stand with the opposing side (right or wrong) they will do what they can to demishes you. Personelly and Professionally. Can't trust the Liberal/Progressives.
12:15 pm on April 3rd, 2011 13
Excuse the spelling. I'm partaking of the grain. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.
1:22 pm on April 3rd, 2011 14
#13,
Bourbon, blended, or single malt?
1:58 pm on April 3rd, 2011 15
Bourbon — fo course
2:42 pm on April 3rd, 2011 16
You don't really need to Nuke the Chinese. This is the reality… 3 dudes and one chick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Fever_(2009_f…
10:02 pm on April 3rd, 2011 17
#10 Teadrinker…
Ref #9: Tell that to the POPE!
10:53 pm on April 3rd, 2011 18
"Bourbon — fo course"
Which one? I've been wanting to try some Gentleman Jack, but I'm partial to Balvenie Doublewood, so much so that my bottle of 17 year-old Ballantine has been gathering dust.
http://www.gilt.com/giltmanual/2010/10/ballantine…
11:04 pm on April 3rd, 2011 19
#17,
Tell that to the pope? I'm praying that a someone invades the Vatican and puts him on trial…and I'm an atheist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-407808/Po…
12:06 am on April 4th, 2011 20
Oh, and to answer your question at #7, Chickenhead.
1) Climategate was debunked.
2) and 3) I'm reducing my "carbon footprint" by raising a glass of whiskey to Retired GI's health right here at home instead of taking a taxi to go do it downtown.
12:52 am on April 4th, 2011 21
Teadrinker, we may disagree on — well most things, but we can agree on raising a glass of whiskey at home. Hey, that's something! As to the $80 Balvenie double wood, my army retirement check doesn't agree to the price. However I will, on occasion spring for Jim Beam (Black Label). If you're still in Korea when I get around to visiting, perhaps we can tip a glass to agreeing to disagreeing.
Now, a few thoughts. The Pope: Who really cares? And I'm a Christian (not that I've been to church in about 30 years) I did enjoy when the occasional Young Troop would invite me to go. (I think they expected me to say no) I could go on and on, but there would be no point.
China: doesn't give a rats as about (the planet). But is pleased that we do.
The hungry: It is truly sad. But as is said in business, they should be allowed to fail. Then there would be less of them—(light bulb moment).
Climate: It is changing. It is always changing. It was changing before we arrived. It will be changing after we are gone. The planet is doing just fine. George Carlin said it best: Ask the people at Pompeii if they feel like a threat to the planet.
Last thought: Why did Obama kill the Orion Program? That is shameful.
You want to say the planet? Invest in the space program. Get people OFF the planet. (yes, the poor and the hungry will stay) Up side: They will not last long. Being poor, I will be one of them.
Any thoughts?
2:21 am on April 4th, 2011 22
1. Teadrinker, that was precisely the type of lame non-answer I expected… and it moves me one step closer to saying "Funk global warmers unconditionally" AND heating my house with tires and plastic bags next winter simply to do my part in finding if they are full of shyt or not.
2. Getting one joke answer and silence from everyone else who supports global warming has pushed me (and possibly others) away from thoughtful consideration and closer to funk-you-I-don't-give-a-shyt-you-hypocrites-so-from-now-on-I'm-just-gonna-do-what-works-for-me-and-to-hell-with-the-environment-which-is-somebody-else's-problem.
3. Anybody who thinks there is a highly-noticeable (price-worthy) difference between blended and single barrel/12 or 18 year/Black Label or Blue Label/etc. is a poser biitch who should be kicked in the nuts with the Truth whispered in their ear while they are curled up on the ground.
I have close to $10,000 in whiskey from all over the world and all over time on some shelves in a back room… and, in many, many, many random taste tests, the average Joe (Korean, Canadian, American, GI) either doesn't know shyt about whiskey or the average consumer is being azz-reamed with marketing (my guess).
There are some very tasty whiskeys that are not expensive and there are some very expensive whiskeys that are not tasty. Beer, gin, rum, etc., matches the same profile.
People who start yapping about "single barrel" can be discounted as poser biitches immediately… as, without experience, the average whiskey drinker will NEVER know… and, even if you know, the price difference is not worth it to a rational person.
Wine, on the other hand, has very noteworthy characteristics that can be obvious and appreciated with little guidance… but nobody yaps about that.
4:31 am on April 4th, 2011 23
22 NICE rant ChickenHead. You're correct. Black label and white label Jim Beam taste the same. At least to me.
Wine is an unknown. I've heard that a glass of the grape a day will keep the doctor away.
You have $10,000 in Whiskey? I'm speechless. I'm assuming you're not talking stocks but bottles.
9:20 am on April 4th, 2011 24
When I go out, I enjoy Starbucks coffee. At home, I drink Taster's Choice instant, and I enjoy it just as much. Maybe that's a little like you whiskey drinkers. Maybe not.
5:52 pm on April 4th, 2011 25
#22,
Right, I'm a snob for enjoying Balvenie Doublewood (not single barrel, by the way), which I buy whenever I can at the duty free shop for 36$, and 17 year-old Ballantine (also a blend, not single barrel), which I get for free because my brother-in-law sells the stuff.
And you brag you've got 10000$ of whiskey…Isn't that a tad hypocritical? You don't get irony, do you?
5:53 pm on April 4th, 2011 26
#24,
I roast my own at home. It's cheaper.
6:54 pm on April 4th, 2011 27
Teadrinker 26, roasting is cheaper than instant? Can you conveniently produce a 180ml cup of coffee at a moment's notice? How much does it cost?
8:44 pm on April 4th, 2011 28
A kilogram of beans goes for 8000 to 14000 won, depending on origin and where you shop. You can roast small batches in a skillet at first to see if you enjoy doing it (it makes quite a bit of smoke) before investing in a roaster. Wait a few hours before you make some coffee with the freshly roasted beans. You have to let the C02 inside the beans escape, or you might end up with a bitter brew.
Probably the best resource for home roasting:
http://www.sweetmarias.com/roasting-VisualGuideV2…
8:50 pm on April 4th, 2011 29
PS. By cheaper, I meant cheaper than Starbucks. Nothing beats instant for convenience. I have some for when I want a cup and I've run out of beans.
9:16 pm on April 4th, 2011 30
Uh, Teadrinker… I have a bar.
A one liter bottle has 33 shots. At 30 to 50 dollars for a shot, even a 400 dollar bottle pays for itself quickly. I have had some of these bottles for ten years and they all eventually pay off.
Also anybody who drinks coffee can stop the global warming lecture. Coffee production requires large amounts of water, emits volumes of carbon, and is environmentally destructive…
…but sure is consumed in large quantities by stinkin' hippies who yap on and on about nature.
…and seems to be loved by our two biggest warmers here…
…who, like most, believe in global warming for the masses but not themselves.
Yet another nail in the argument coffin.
9:38 pm on April 4th, 2011 31
The aforementioned Dr Muller surprised a lot of people with his take on the climate data:
Interesting.
10:58 pm on April 4th, 2011 32
#30, Even BETTER rant!
I thought you gave up the Bar in Osan.
12:10 am on April 5th, 2011 33
#30,
You still don't get why you came off as being arrogant? Owning a bar doesn't make you an authority on my own personal tastes, does it? Had I been a "snob", as you accused me of being, I wouldn't have even mentioned Jack Daniel's Gentleman Jack (which I'm curious about because I hear it's very smooth, and that's what I like).
I don't buy Brazilian coffee, which is the large scale automated production that you are referring to. I drink organically grown coffee, bought from farmers who only have a few plants each. The whole production last year in that particular country was only 300 bags. At 60lbs a bag (I think), and one plant producing a pound a year, that's not very many plants.
12:19 am on April 5th, 2011 34
#31,
Exactly. That's the report I linked to. Dr. Mueller is flaunted as THE expert on global warming. I show evidence that the good doctor concedes that the data is right, that the research does show that it's going on, and it falls on dead hears? Hence my comment about cognitive dissonance.
5:20 am on April 5th, 2011 35
Sorry, Teadrinker, I missed some of your links. If they've run through 2 percent (1 in 50) of the 1.6 billion data points chosen at random, as they say, and they've come up with the same data, it's statistically extremely unlikely (but not impossible) for things to change after doing the other 98% (think of how polls are fairly accurate despite talking to less than 1 in 100,000 people).
Muller says he doesn't think all of the warming is the result of human activity, and he gives a rough range, but it's still over half, he says.
8:30 am on April 5th, 2011 36
Of course we knew going in that the warming isn't entirely due to human activity. We're coming out of a glaciation, duh. The additional carbon dioxide from fossil fuel adds to the warming. And we've got six billion people depending on farms and factories now, not a few thousand hunter-gatherers.
GI Korea sees a graph showing up-and-down temperatures with an upward trend, and he says it shows cooling. A warming skeptic confirms warming, and GI Korea says he refutes warming. Eventually, he figured out that Saddam Hussein no longer had weapons of mass destruction; some day, he'll figure out that global warming is real.
1:45 pm on April 5th, 2011 37
Glans I would appreciate if you didn't attribute things to me I didn't say. I did not say the graph showed cooling, I clearly said the trend is warming. Here is what I said:
The debate isn't about whether global warming is real, it is real, how much and what is causing it that is the question. You are using the typical response to claim skeptics don't think the globe is warming when all the skeptics like McIntyre, Watts, and others have openly been saying for years the globe is warming. They want real science done to determine the cause not the dishonest science we saw from ClimateGate. The hockey stick graph was a manipulation of data to show a steep increase in temperatures when the actual graph shows a much lower increase in temperatures. How you guys can continue to defend such manipulation is beyond me.
Also Professor Muller is not a warming skeptic he is a global warming believer who did not include all the updated work on the surface temperature stations that Anthony Watts has been doing in his research because the paper is still undergoing peer review. He also clearly said that he hasn't completed the review of the data and if he is an honest scientist (which I think he is) he will include the work of Watts in his review. You obviously didn't read the links in comment 8 because Watts has already responded to Muller with valid criticisms. Regardless I look forward to reading future papers from Professor Muller. Unlike the global warming ummah I actually like to read thoughtful works that challenge my assumptions.
Finally don't talk to me about not knowing there was no WMD's in Iraq. I fought in the war in 2003 and knew full well first hand long before you ever did there was no WMD's in Iraq. Generally you are a thoughtful commenter but your last comment left a lot to be desired.
3:55 pm on April 5th, 2011 38
GI Korea 37, I have never defended the hockey stick.
Before you began fighting in 2003, I knew that Condoleeza
Rice's statements about aluminum tubes were foolish and that Colin Powell's cartoonish drawing of a "mobile lab" was garbage. I was, of course, not prepared to say that there were no WMD, but I saw no grounds to believe there were any. I would not have sent you to risk your life and health in Iraq, and I hope you'll soon post a comment praising Hans Blix.
I don't consider myself a member of any ummah, and I'm confident that you don't mean to mock Arabs or Muslims by using that term.
Thank you for clarifying your position, which I may indeed have misread. In another thread, I asked if any of these propositions true:
1. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared red light.
2. Human activities increase the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
3. The global climate is warming.
4. The polar ice caps and the glaciers are melting.
5. Sea level is rising.
Noone assented to any of them.
Anyhow, You are an outstanding officer and gentleman, and this is a splendid blog.
4:13 pm on April 5th, 2011 39
Glans.
Remember that Socrates was so irritating he was put to death… and I bet his Socratic method of eliciting the answers he wanted was far more subtle than yours.
I will answer your questions, though… and with very reasonable answers… although they may not support the conclusion you are fishing for.
But, first, you must answer mine…
…as they are valid questions that you have ignored, Teadrinker has only jokingly addressed, and all other Warmers have slunk away after seeing.
Sorry about the re-post.
1. Unlike in other sciences, why do global warming scientists hide their data and methods, conspire to keep it hidden, and conspire to stop others from questioning their science?
2. Why do none of the people who push Manmade Global Warming live their lives like they actually believe in global warming… and in many cases their carbon footprint is actually much larger than average and much, much larger than necessary?
3. What real steps have you taken to reduce your carbon footprint. Don’t try to pass off conservation and recycling actions, which many responsible people do in the interest of obvious environmental concerns. Give us actions that specifically are designed to reduce your carbon footprint and prove you truly believe and are as alarmed as you want others to be.
Still waiting.
4:23 pm on April 5th, 2011 40
I'm selling carbon credits for all you earth abusers. Love your mother. Or, let me do it and send me some money!
8:18 pm on April 5th, 2011 41
ChickenHead 39, I remember Socrates. He was a friend of mine. And ChickenHead, you're no Socrates.
I haven't followed the climate-gate scandal. I just don't care. If you proved to me that Percival Lowell made foolish mistakes in astronomy, if you showed his Martian canals were a fantasy, if you showed that Pluto could not possibly have perturbed the orbit of Neptune as he thought, still Pluto would exist.
If I live in a way the reflects confidence in the existence of Pluto, or in a way that reflects doubt about it, neither will affect the existence of Pluto.
I'm not alarmed and I don't want anyone else to be alarmed.
Meanwhile, the glaciers are melting.
Heat damages coffee and raises prices.
Obama and Chu want to close Yucca Mountain, but the Republicans are on the case.
10:53 pm on April 5th, 2011 42
@#38- I am glad you are not defending the hockey stick because the data manipulation is dishonest science. This dishonesty puts into question their modified data because the CRU destroyed all the original source data:
Not only are these scientists dishonest but they are proven lawbreakers. Then you throw in the fact there are many other scientists that were caught manipulating global warming data it further puts into question the numbers. That is why I have been posting Dr. Roy Spencer's UAH temperature data that so far I have seen no signs of it being intentionally manipulated. The UAH temperature data still shows the overall increase in global temperatures, just not the doomsday type other scientists have been proclaiming for years.
So in response to all your questions the answer is yes, however as I stated before no one knows how much carbon dioxide is raising the temperature and due to all the data manipulation it is tough to clarify how much the temperature has even gone up.
Plus none of this is happening at the doomsday like events that the global warming clergy has been preaching for years. Then you add in the manipulation of the public by the global warming clergy by claiming things are caused by global warming that obviously were caused by other events this further adds to the dishonesty surrounding the entire global warming science. Since you brought up glaciers, they are a perfect example of this dishonesty with Glacier National Park and the Himalayas being recent examples of the dishonesty.
What really annoys me is that none of these people are ever held accountable for their dishonesty and scaremongering. In just about any other field of science such people would be scorned yet all these dishonest people surrounding the global warming science are championed.
12:49 am on April 6th, 2011 43
#39,
1) Once again, Climategate was debunked…They don't publish their findings in peer-reviewed articles? Hidden my ass.
2) Everyone? A bit heavy-handed with the hyperbole, aren't you?
3) You already got my answer for that one. Cheers, Retired GI.
4:30 am on April 6th, 2011 44
KoolaidDrinker strikes again, we see… Without answering any questions… How utterly typical.
Chickenhead wrote:
"Global Warming Believers,
If you want me and others to believe with you, answer the following questions with absolutely no bullshyt.
1. Unlike in other sciences, why do global warming scientists hide their data and methods, conspire to keep it hidden, and conspire to stop others from questioning their science?
2. Why do none of the people who push Manmade Global Warming live their lives like they actually believe in global warming… and in many cases their carbon footprint is actually much larger than average and much, much larger than necessary?
3. What real steps have you taken to reduce your carbon footprint. Don’t try to pass off conservation and recycling actions, which many responsible people do in the interest of obvious environmental concerns. Give us actions that specifically are designed to reduce your carbon footprint and prove you truly believe and are as alarmed as you want others to be.
Waiting."
Apparently our friend the Teadrinker doesn't know that in order to publish in these so-called "Peer-reviewed" publications that the author must agree with AGW. And IIRC, the openly debunked Himalayan Glacier fraud was published in "peer-reviewed" yellow rags as well…
Actual "science" can be tested and duplicated. Actual "scientific methods" are used. Destroying original temperature measurements and replacing them with manipulated data — regardless of the intent — is not "science". Period.
Politics is not science. And politics should not be allowed to color the results of actual scientists. However, AGW is populated by credentialed parasites masquerading as scientists, putting on a minstrel show to obtain government handouts in order to propose more and more illegitimate constraints on the freedoms of the many while enriching the few (including, not coincidentally, the primary spokesmen for AGW).
Teadrinker, you need to get better glasses and wash your cup. That ain't tea you've been drinking…
4:47 am on April 6th, 2011 45
The eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines released more "global warming gasses" than humanity has since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
One volcano.
What makes you pathetic potheads think you can add one more minute to your miserable, wasted lives? Are you protected against everything? You're going to put yourselves right into a straitjacket…
Do good. Help your neighbor. Defend the defenseless.
And quit trying to facilitate a nanny-state like North Korea, Cuba, or Zimbabwe on the rest of us. If you really want to live in one, get off your fat backside and move to the "Worker's Paradise" of your choice.
Trust me. We'll all thank you.
6:07 am on April 6th, 2011 46
The whole "Climategate was debunked" line is starting to sound an awful lot like the "consensus on man made warming", "the sea is rising at an alarming rate", "polar bears are dying", and "our grandchildren won't know what snow is."
Exactly how was their refusal to comply with a freedom of information act request debunked? They did it. There is no question. It was against the law and it was against the spirit of true scientific discovery.
Not getting in trouble for it due to a legal technicality is not "debunking".
On refusing to share data and methodologies, "the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community"
That is exoneration? Everybody in climate research is a sneaky little data manipulator so it's OK if little Billy is one, too.
I can go on and on.
Every aspect of the fake investigations on Climategate were a joke from the beginning… be it that the investigations were run by institutions which would loose millions of dollars if the scandal continued… to members of the investigating committees having less than neutral positions on the matter.
No. Climategate was NOT debunked. It was whitewashed… by investigating groups that had the opportunity, method, and certainly the motive to do so.
Teadrinker, despite your "advanced science degrees", I now understand why you teach English in Korea. You believe it is perfectly acceptable for scientists to hide their data and methodology and destroy original data to avoid true peer review. In fact, you excuse and champion it.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that you, and a few others around here, wouldn't know quality scientific research if it jumped out of a urinal and bit you on the sack.
So how can your opinion on the validity of global warming be taken at all seriously?
…not to mention that your big contribution to slowing the ending of the world is to drink some whiskey.
9:11 pm on April 7th, 2011 47
Recall the Five Propositions of Glans:
1. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared red light.
2. Human activities increase the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
3. The global climate is warming.
4. The polar ice caps and the glaciers are melting.
5. Sea level is rising.
When GI Korea 42 says, "So in response to all your questions the answer is yes … ," I think he means these propostions are true. Commenters, what say you? Has GI Korea sipped the kool aid, or are the Five Propositions of Glans really true?