Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

The Pause Exists Yet Again

medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 6:37:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Is it funny how all the Global Warming groups jumped on the band wagon last year claiming that the 'pause' didn't exist, and was just a result of statistical error?

Now reputable scientist even withing the Global Warming community are calling the conclusions invalid, and fighting it out in Scientific Journals.

"The interpretation [the NOAA group] made was not valid," said John Fyfe, a climate scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada and lead author of the commentary. "The slowdown is there, even in this new updated data set."
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

As for this concern, or lack there of, this article gives about the infighting could be latched on by skeptics I'd just like to add one thought.

The ONLY reason I became a skeptic last year was because I know enough about statistics that I could tell the the NOAA report was false. Had that report never existed and tried to claim that the 'pause' was a statistical anomaly that they could wash away I'd still be in the 'Global Warming Probably Exists' camp. I would never have pulled the data myself, and actually looked to see if the numerous claims Global Warming Alarmists have made where actually true, or not.
Subutai
Posts: 3,150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 7:10:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 6:37:27 PM, medv4380 wrote:
Is it funny how all the Global Warming groups jumped on the band wagon last year claiming that the 'pause' didn't exist, and was just a result of statistical error?

Now reputable scientist even withing the Global Warming community are calling the conclusions invalid, and fighting it out in Scientific Journals.

"The interpretation [the NOAA group] made was not valid," said John Fyfe, a climate scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada and lead author of the commentary. "The slowdown is there, even in this new updated data set."
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

As for this concern, or lack there of, this article gives about the infighting could be latched on by skeptics I'd just like to add one thought.

The ONLY reason I became a skeptic last year was because I know enough about statistics that I could tell the the NOAA report was false. Had that report never existed and tried to claim that the 'pause' was a statistical anomaly that they could wash away I'd still be in the 'Global Warming Probably Exists' camp. I would never have pulled the data myself, and actually looked to see if the numerous claims Global Warming Alarmists have made where actually true, or not.

To think that this would negate the theory that humans are the main cause of recent climate changes would be erroneous. Here's what the paper cited says, "Using this more physically interpretable 1972-2001 baseline, we find that the surface warming from 2001 to 2014 is significantly smaller than the baseline warming rate." This is saying two things - one, there was still a robust warming trend from 1972 to 2001, and that the trend from 2001 to 2014, while still positive, was much less positive than the trend during that previous period.

The authors explain the slowdown by arguing that, "The big hiatus and warming slowdown periods correspond to times during which the dominant mode of decadal variability in the pacific - the IPO - was in its negative phase. In the intervening period [1972-2001] the IPO was in its positive phase." Thus, they argue that there's still an underlying warming trend independent of the effects of the IPO (otherwise, there'd be a cooldown from 2001 to 2014), and this is due to anthropogenically caused global warming.

Both the article you cited and the paper it itself cites caution against skeptics reading too much into this. Neither is arguing that this negates the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 9:26:16 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 7:10:42 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/26/2016 6:37:27 PM, medv4380 wrote:
Is it funny how all the Global Warming groups jumped on the band wagon last year claiming that the 'pause' didn't exist, and was just a result of statistical error?

Now reputable scientist even withing the Global Warming community are calling the conclusions invalid, and fighting it out in Scientific Journals.

"The interpretation [the NOAA group] made was not valid," said John Fyfe, a climate scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada and lead author of the commentary. "The slowdown is there, even in this new updated data set."
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

As for this concern, or lack there of, this article gives about the infighting could be latched on by skeptics I'd just like to add one thought.

The ONLY reason I became a skeptic last year was because I know enough about statistics that I could tell the the NOAA report was false. Had that report never existed and tried to claim that the 'pause' was a statistical anomaly that they could wash away I'd still be in the 'Global Warming Probably Exists' camp. I would never have pulled the data myself, and actually looked to see if the numerous claims Global Warming Alarmists have made where actually true, or not.

To think that this would negate the theory that humans are the main cause of recent climate changes would be erroneous. Here's what the paper cited says, "Using this more physically interpretable 1972-2001 baseline, we find that the surface warming from 2001 to 2014 is significantly smaller than the baseline warming rate." This is saying two things - one, there was still a robust warming trend from 1972 to 2001, and that the trend from 2001 to 2014, while still positive, was much less positive than the trend during that previous period.

The authors explain the slowdown by arguing that, "The big hiatus and warming slowdown periods correspond to times during which the dominant mode of decadal variability in the pacific - the IPO - was in its negative phase. In the intervening period [1972-2001] the IPO was in its positive phase." Thus, they argue that there's still an underlying warming trend independent of the effects of the IPO (otherwise, there'd be a cooldown from 2001 to 2014), and this is due to anthropogenically caused global warming.

Both the article you cited and the paper it itself cites caution against skeptics reading too much into this. Neither is arguing that this negates the theory of anthropogenic global warming. :

Yes, .. "Anthropogenic ally caused Global Warming" is a fact, I have been observing this now for almost 60 years; every summer the earth gets warmer than it has been over the rest of the year, hundreds of miles of polar ice are melting every summer too. And as you said: "It is because of human causes", .. people in the summer go outside and sun bathe, and breathe heavier heating up the earth.
I have also noticed they (the people) are sucking up all the water in the summer too, far more than in the winter, where California is just about all out of water. At this rate, the whole earth will be left without water, and that's why we have to hurry and exterminate 6.5 billion people (Hail Agenda 21, 2030), and for the remaining few build ships to go to Mars, .. because we have no more water on earth, the air is unfit to breathe, .. gets hot in the summer, no food after we closed all the farms and threw those farmers into the cities, ..

And it's getting hotter, .. the trees are dying out at an alarming rate too, (Our One World Governments have built 70 ton bulldozers which are working hard 24/7 ripping through the earths remaining rainforest, piling up thousands of acres of trees a day in a desperate attempt to try to save the trees, .. duh, .. you can understand that can't you? Doing all we can. And what about Chem-trails, the earth would catch a severe cold without our Chem-trailing 24/7 on the entire earth, we your Rulers are providing a blanket to keep Earth nice and warm, .. all in the attempt to save the earth from "global Warming", .. no expense spared, even if we have to kill everyone on the planet!
Do we worry that all life on earth is about to be wiped out?
Of course not, Mother Nature will adept to any situation and evolve life, .. life happens, all you need is a hot rock and let it start to cool and life will happen. That's why we have to get off the earth, .. so life could happen.

So it's Mars or bust, .. besides, Marshal Applewhite and his space cadets are already waiting for us there, so "no time to Pause".

Our ONLY hope for humanity is Mars, where a few brave souls can go and save humanity from extinction. There they can make all the water they want, no one will fine them for "drinking too much water!". They can plant all the food they want (Please see the movie "The Martian") also instead of eating up all the food on earth beyond sustainability! Man can also sunbathe as much as they want since it will take man 100's or even 1000's of years to heat up the minus 100+ degree Mars atmosphere. No worry about killing all the green trees, there are no trees to kill. It's the perfect place for mankind, with an atmosphere of 95% of carbon dioxide, man don't have to worry about creating pollution because even pollution would be a welcome on Mars. Besides, Mars needs a little human Global Warming.

"But what about earth?"

Of course we'll have to blow it up, nuke it to a post Apocalyptic stage, and inhabit the billions of planets out there just waiting for us! We are building ships as we speak to send the Only Hope For Humanity on a Five Year Mission, to go where no man has gone before, .. and lived before leaving this godforsaken earth that has no water, too hot, water levels rising because there is no more water, .. see how crazy this earth is?

Close 80% of the farms on earth and BAM, half the world is starving. Who want's to live on a planet like that?

Yep, so it's Mars or Bust!, .. it's all spelled out in E=MC^2
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 12:40:22 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 6:37:27 PM, medv4380 wrote:
Is it funny how all the Global Warming groups jumped on the band wagon last year claiming that the 'pause' didn't exist, and was just a result of statistical error?

Now reputable scientist even withing the Global Warming community are calling the conclusions invalid, and fighting it out in Scientific Journals.

"The interpretation [the NOAA group] made was not valid," said John Fyfe, a climate scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada and lead author of the commentary. "The slowdown is there, even in this new updated data set."
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

As for this concern, or lack there of, this article gives about the infighting could be latched on by skeptics I'd just like to add one thought.

The ONLY reason I became a skeptic last year was because I know enough about statistics that I could tell the the NOAA report was false. Had that report never existed and tried to claim that the 'pause' was a statistical anomaly that they could wash away I'd still be in the 'Global Warming Probably Exists' camp. I would never have pulled the data myself, and actually looked to see if the numerous claims Global Warming Alarmists have made where actually true, or not.

You never pointed out why these results are invalid and why these individual scientists are right and the NOAA is wrong. You sound like an opinion poster only, not someone who actually presents compelling only.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:30:33 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 12:40:22 AM, distraff wrote:
At 2/26/2016 6:37:27 PM, medv4380 wrote:
Is it funny how all the Global Warming groups jumped on the band wagon last year claiming that the 'pause' didn't exist, and was just a result of statistical error?

Now reputable scientist even withing the Global Warming community are calling the conclusions invalid, and fighting it out in Scientific Journals.

"The interpretation [the NOAA group] made was not valid," said John Fyfe, a climate scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada and lead author of the commentary. "The slowdown is there, even in this new updated data set."
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

As for this concern, or lack there of, this article gives about the infighting could be latched on by skeptics I'd just like to add one thought.

The ONLY reason I became a skeptic last year was because I know enough about statistics that I could tell the the NOAA report was false. Had that report never existed and tried to claim that the 'pause' was a statistical anomaly that they could wash away I'd still be in the 'Global Warming Probably Exists' camp. I would never have pulled the data myself, and actually looked to see if the numerous claims Global Warming Alarmists have made where actually true, or not.

You never pointed out why these results are invalid and why these individual scientists are right and the NOAA is wrong. You sound like an opinion poster only, not someone who actually presents compelling only.

What you request I posted six months ago when tejretics, and a sizable portion of the scientific community where trying to brow beat skeptics with the Hiatus just a statistical mirage.
http://www.debate.org...

I don't particularly like to resurrect old dead threads when people like yourself only read the first post, and would actually fail to read any new information.

You sound like someone who is too cowardly to debate.
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:54:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:30:33 AM, medv4380 wrote:
At 2/27/2016 12:40:22 AM, distraff wrote:
At 2/26/2016 6:37:27 PM, medv4380 wrote:
Is it funny how all the Global Warming groups jumped on the band wagon last year claiming that the 'pause' didn't exist, and was just a result of statistical error?

Now reputable scientist even withing the Global Warming community are calling the conclusions invalid, and fighting it out in Scientific Journals.

"The interpretation [the NOAA group] made was not valid," said John Fyfe, a climate scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada and lead author of the commentary. "The slowdown is there, even in this new updated data set."
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

As for this concern, or lack there of, this article gives about the infighting could be latched on by skeptics I'd just like to add one thought.

The ONLY reason I became a skeptic last year was because I know enough about statistics that I could tell the the NOAA report was false. Had that report never existed and tried to claim that the 'pause' was a statistical anomaly that they could wash away I'd still be in the 'Global Warming Probably Exists' camp. I would never have pulled the data myself, and actually looked to see if the numerous claims Global Warming Alarmists have made where actually true, or not.

You never pointed out why these results are invalid and why these individual scientists are right and the NOAA is wrong. You sound like an opinion poster only, not someone who actually presents compelling only.

What you request I posted six months ago when tejretics, and a sizable portion of the scientific community where trying to brow beat skeptics with the Hiatus just a statistical mirage.
http://www.debate.org...

I don't particularly like to resurrect old dead threads when people like yourself only read the first post, and would actually fail to read any new information.

You sound like someone who is too cowardly to debate.

"A few years ago the Hiatus was explained away as caused by a series of 17 volcanoes. Now it's being explained away as an issue that can be erased with weighting. The explanations are in clear contradiction, and proves that one, or both are completely wrong."

The volcanoes explained why the hiatus could have happened. The weighting correction explanation shows that when the data is corrected that there is actually no hiatus. So even with volcanoes driving down the temps, the temperatures were still rising because of the enormous amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by the US and China.

Also, much of that ground data showing hiatus leaves out a lot of arctic data yet the arctic has warmed the most in the 2000s. When you use satellite data over the arctic and include that with the rest of the data you find that there is also no hiatus.

Another fact is that temperature mostly just measures the heat content in the air and most of the heat is actually going into our oceans. When you look at air + ocean heat, there is no hiatus.

This whole hiatus issue is a whole bunch of garbage. Plus if there was a hiatus scientists don't expect temperature to go in strait lines and when you look at the temps in the past 100 years you find a whole bunch of short-term hiatuses because of short-term temp trends like ocean currents, volcanoes, the sun, etc. What matters is the long-term trend over the past several decades.

2015-2016 are years with record temperatures and have broken the hiatus. 13 out of the hottest 15 years since the 1800's has been in the 2000s even leaving out 2015 and 2016. This hiatus is unscientific nonsense and there is a reason the scientists don't take it serious. It wouldn't even disprove global warming if it was. Its a failed argument and you must stop using it if you don't want to sound ignorant.

The fact is the this planet is heating up rapidly and this could start a dangerous out of control natural warming cycle you are pretending like it isn't.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 6:10:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
To my knowledge, none of the scientists skeptical of global warming crisis argue that global warming does not exist. In one of the earliest books by a skeptical climatologist. Patrick Michaels' "Satanic Gases," he said that the earth has been warming at a rate of about 1 degree C per century, and that it wouldn't be surprising if that continued. That's probably partly due to CO2, but also due to other long term climate effects. Climate crisis is claimed to occur with a temperature rise of 2 deg C per century, although given that there is more than ten degrees difference between New York City and Orlando it's hard to identify a crisis threshold.

There have been two arguments against the pause. One is that even though temperatures of 0.2 C/decade are not observed, there is a tiny rise, just above statistical significance, maybe 0.01 C/decade. The error in thinking is that is that such a small rise is not a crisis. The other argument is that the rise in the past decade is 0.1 degree. That rise is only observed in heavily adjusted land station measurements, not in satellite measurements that show close to no rise. Of course, 0.1 degree is the trend over the past century that everyone agrees to, and is not a crisis.

The argument that most of the hottest years have occurred recently is not proof of global warming crisis. The hottest years claim is doubtful, but lets suppose it is true. Everyone agrees that we are currently having warm temperatures. Let's say the temperature in 2000 was 58.00 degrees, and that was a record. Then, for example, sequence of 58.01, 58.005, 58.007, 58.00, 58.009, and 58.001 then produces seven of the hottest years on record, but with no significant trend and no crisis. It's just bouncing around near the recent maximum.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 1:17:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 6:10:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
To my knowledge, none of the scientists skeptical of global warming crisis argue that global warming does not exist. In one of the earliest books by a skeptical climatologist. Patrick Michaels' "Satanic Gases," he said that the earth has been warming at a rate of about 1 degree C per century, and that it wouldn't be surprising if that continued. That's probably partly due to CO2, but also due to other long term climate effects. Climate crisis is claimed to occur with a temperature rise of 2 deg C per century, although given that there is more than ten degrees difference between New York City and Orlando it's hard to identify a crisis threshold.

There have been two arguments against the pause. One is that even though temperatures of 0.2 C/decade are not observed, there is a tiny rise, just above statistical significance, maybe 0.01 C/decade. The error in thinking is that is that such a small rise is not a crisis. The other argument is that the rise in the past decade is 0.1 degree. That rise is only observed in heavily adjusted land station measurements, not in satellite measurements that show close to no rise. Of course, 0.1 degree is the trend over the past century that everyone agrees to, and is not a crisis.

The argument that most of the hottest years have occurred recently is not proof of global warming crisis. The hottest years claim is doubtful, but lets suppose it is true. Everyone agrees that we are currently having warm temperatures. Let's say the temperature in 2000 was 58.00 degrees, and that was a record. Then, for example, sequence of 58.01, 58.005, 58.007, 58.00, 58.009, and 58.001 then produces seven of the hottest years on record, but with no significant trend and no crisis. It's just bouncing around near the recent maximum.

Based on real world data from NASA Goddard institute for space studies, who might have access to satellite information perhaps a realistic sequence would be 58.00, 58.02, 58.04, 58.06, 58.08, 59.00 since the average rise in the last decade was 0.02 degrees per year in line with 2 degrees per century.

Your figures are of course complete invention so have no meaning. To clue you in science is done by getting real data from reliable sources, perhaps you thought just making things up was science?
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 1:22:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 1:17:43 PM, chui wrote:
At 3/2/2016 6:10:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
To my knowledge, none of the scientists skeptical of global warming crisis argue that global warming does not exist. In one of the earliest books by a skeptical climatologist. Patrick Michaels' "Satanic Gases," he said that the earth has been warming at a rate of about 1 degree C per century, and that it wouldn't be surprising if that continued. That's probably partly due to CO2, but also due to other long term climate effects. Climate crisis is claimed to occur with a temperature rise of 2 deg C per century, although given that there is more than ten degrees difference between New York City and Orlando it's hard to identify a crisis threshold.

There have been two arguments against the pause. One is that even though temperatures of 0.2 C/decade are not observed, there is a tiny rise, just above statistical significance, maybe 0.01 C/decade. The error in thinking is that is that such a small rise is not a crisis. The other argument is that the rise in the past decade is 0.1 degree. That rise is only observed in heavily adjusted land station measurements, not in satellite measurements that show close to no rise. Of course, 0.1 degree is the trend over the past century that everyone agrees to, and is not a crisis.

The argument that most of the hottest years have occurred recently is not proof of global warming crisis. The hottest years claim is doubtful, but lets suppose it is true. Everyone agrees that we are currently having warm temperatures. Let's say the temperature in 2000 was 58.00 degrees, and that was a record. Then, for example, sequence of 58.01, 58.005, 58.007, 58.00, 58.009, and 58.001 then produces seven of the hottest years on record, but with no significant trend and no crisis. It's just bouncing around near the recent maximum.

Based on real world data from NASA Goddard institute for space studies, who might have access to satellite information perhaps a realistic sequence would be 58.00, 58.02, 58.04, 58.06, 58.08, 59.00 since the average rise in the last decade was 0.02 degrees per year in line with 2 degrees per century.

Your figures are of course complete invention so have no meaning. To clue you in science is done by getting real data from reliable sources, perhaps you thought just making things up was science? :

I don't know about the "accurate information on Global Warming" from NASA, but I have observed since the 70's here in AZ Phoenix area that un-heated pools in the winter remain cold 56 F-degrees or so, and now, after a week of heavy chem-trailing, my pool warms up to over 70 F even when it's still cold outside!! So it's not hard to manipulate the weather to support some World Wide - wipe the earth of 6.5 BILLION unsustainable (uncontrolled free thinking) humans from the face of the earth.

So yea, .. no one could deny "Global Warming", .. as for the why's, just "look up" and you can see why?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
slo1
Posts: 4,312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 1:51:39 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 6:37:27 PM, medv4380 wrote:
Is it funny how all the Global Warming groups jumped on the band wagon last year claiming that the 'pause' didn't exist, and was just a result of statistical error?

Now reputable scientist even withing the Global Warming community are calling the conclusions invalid, and fighting it out in Scientific Journals.

"The interpretation [the NOAA group] made was not valid," said John Fyfe, a climate scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada and lead author of the commentary. "The slowdown is there, even in this new updated data set."
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

As for this concern, or lack there of, this article gives about the infighting could be latched on by skeptics I'd just like to add one thought.

The ONLY reason I became a skeptic last year was because I know enough about statistics that I could tell the the NOAA report was false. Had that report never existed and tried to claim that the 'pause' was a statistical anomaly that they could wash away I'd still be in the 'Global Warming Probably Exists' camp. I would never have pulled the data myself, and actually looked to see if the numerous claims Global Warming Alarmists have made where actually true, or not.

You obviously didn't even read the article. This is a disagreement about the rate of warming. All agree it is increasing. Look at the chart in the article and tell me where exactly you see a pause. You don't because there isn't one.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 3:08:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 1:22:35 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 3/3/2016 1:17:43 PM, chui wrote:
At 3/2/2016 6:10:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
To my knowledge, none of the scientists skeptical of global warming crisis argue that global warming does not exist. In one of the earliest books by a skeptical climatologist. Patrick Michaels' "Satanic Gases," he said that the earth has been warming at a rate of about 1 degree C per century, and that it wouldn't be surprising if that continued. That's probably partly due to CO2, but also due to other long term climate effects. Climate crisis is claimed to occur with a temperature rise of 2 deg C per century, although given that there is more than ten degrees difference between New York City and Orlando it's hard to identify a crisis threshold.

There have been two arguments against the pause. One is that even though temperatures of 0.2 C/decade are not observed, there is a tiny rise, just above statistical significance, maybe 0.01 C/decade. The error in thinking is that is that such a small rise is not a crisis. The other argument is that the rise in the past decade is 0.1 degree. That rise is only observed in heavily adjusted land station measurements, not in satellite measurements that show close to no rise. Of course, 0.1 degree is the trend over the past century that everyone agrees to, and is not a crisis.

The argument that most of the hottest years have occurred recently is not proof of global warming crisis. The hottest years claim is doubtful, but lets suppose it is true. Everyone agrees that we are currently having warm temperatures. Let's say the temperature in 2000 was 58.00 degrees, and that was a record. Then, for example, sequence of 58.01, 58.005, 58.007, 58.00, 58.009, and 58.001 then produces seven of the hottest years on record, but with no significant trend and no crisis. It's just bouncing around near the recent maximum.

Based on real world data from NASA Goddard institute for space studies, who might have access to satellite information perhaps a realistic sequence would be 58.00, 58.02, 58.04, 58.06, 58.08, 59.00 since the average rise in the last decade was 0.02 degrees per year in line with 2 degrees per century.

Your figures are of course complete invention so have no meaning. To clue you in science is done by getting real data from reliable sources, perhaps you thought just making things up was science? :

I don't know about the "accurate information on Global Warming" from NASA, but I have observed since the 70's here in AZ Phoenix area that un-heated pools in the winter remain cold 56 F-degrees or so, and now, after a week of heavy chem-trailing, my pool warms up to over 70 F even when it's still cold outside!! So it's not hard to manipulate the weather to support some World Wide - wipe the earth of 6.5 BILLION unsustainable (uncontrolled free thinking) humans from the face of the earth.

So yea, .. no one could deny "Global Warming", .. as for the why's, just "look up" and you can see why?

Are you seriously claiming that chem-trailing in so part of your country is responsible for warming the entire globe. How do you keep breathing, do you need some one to remind you?