A response to 2014’s , AL GORE IS FULL OF HOT AIR’, by Raquel Okyay… (so called journalist and writer for her own, ‘Raquelokyay.com’, such notable publications as the online, ‘Guns & Patriots’ ( a subsidiary?, of ‘HUMAN EVENTS’ which claims, “Human Events has been the nation’s leading conservative voice since we were established in 1944.

Details about the demise of the print version of this ”leading conservative voice’, can be read at ‘http://www.adweek.com/fishbowldc/how-the-chips-fell-at-human-events/98504‘ wherein it is said the following, “ The decision to close the print edition of the paper comes just less than a year since Human Events shook up its staff with both layoffs and new hires. The print edition and website underwent major redesigns under the new editorial leadership Taylor. ( from FishBowlDC, February 7, 2013)

On to Ms. Okyay’s misleading and ‘denial’ style rhetoric.

Along with her attacks on ‘fear mongers’… (only just about every reputable Scientific , International and established agency, and the 97 % plus ‘real’ scientists, climatologists, Al Gore, and ‘actors’ and ‘ideologues’, (Kettle calling the … well you know )..like Maurice Strong and Barack Obama. We will debunk step by step from the ‘Skeptical Scientist’ webpages, her ‘arguments, claims.bb

Underlined claims are Ms. Okyay’s.

IPCC ignores the potential for positive feedback due to increased CO2, and
There is clear evidence of productivity benefits to plant life due to CO2 enrichment
(2 down)
(Co2 is plant food, myth and similar). See http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm ,

What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general? 1.

 CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (12).

On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it  quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer.

2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food.

3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

4. As is confirmed by long-term  experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against  limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the  “nitrogen plateau” soon truncate this benefit

5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows.

IPCC temperature models contain major inadequacies and fail to simulate basic weather conditions

Myth: Models are unreliable
“[Models] are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing 
climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.”  (Freeman Dyson)

There are two major questions in climate modeling – can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800’s – both with and without man-made forcings. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Noone has created ageneral circulation model that can explain climate‘s behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming. See full link at, ‘http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
The IPCC fails to document the Medieval Warm Period, which occurred about 1,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period in the 1st century AD.

Myth: Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made.

One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that theMedieval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe.  The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period.  Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times  (Figure 1).  This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in thatregion. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today’s warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Overall, our conclusions are:

a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years, and

b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.

Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction by Moberg et al. (2005)shown in blue, Instrumental Temperatures from NASA shown in Red. See full link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

Exaggerated estimates of recent warming relied on discredited surface-station temperature data.

The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.

Climate Myth :,Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
The Myth: “Satellite measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979, the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis – a test that the hypothesis fails.” (Bob Carter)

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992).One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).

Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.

To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.

The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth’s surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth’satmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures. 

There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).

When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.

At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics.

All three groups measuring temperatures of the troposphere show a warming trend. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a study in April 2006 on this topic. Leadauthors included John Christy of UAH and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Labs. More at link: “http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
The IPCC failed to adequately account for changes in the technology used by temperature stations over the years and adjustments to raw data compounded measurement errors.

IPCC is Summarizing the Scientific Research

The IPCC does not conduct any original research; it’s a summary report, and these statements accurately reflect the body of climate science research. For example, last yearclimate scientists Tom Wigley and Ben Santer published a paper concluding that humanclimate influences were responsible for 50 to 150 percent of the observed warming from 1950 to 2005.

Like this new IPCC statement, they found that humans have caused at least half the observed warming since 1950, and most likely all of it. It’s also possible that humans have caused more warming than has been observed because natural factors may have had a net cooling effect. The Wigley and Santer results are consistent with the body of scientific research on the causes of global warming. See link: “http://www.skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Blog0=2209

Also, below…

The IPCC surface temperature projections have been exceptionally accurate thus far.

Climate Myth…

IPCC overestimate temperature rise
“The IPCC’s predicted equilibrium warming path bears no relation to the far lesser rate of “global warming” that has been observed in the 21st century to date.” (Christopher Monckton)


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) First Assessment Report (FAR)was published in 1990.  The FAR used simple global climate models to estimate changes in the global-mean surface air temperature under various CO2 emissionsscenarios.  Details about the climate models used by the IPCC are provided in Chapter 6.6 of the report.

The IPCC FAR ran simulations using various emissions scenarios and climate models. The emissions scenarios included business as usual (BAU) and three other scenarios (B, C, D) in which global human greenhouse gas emissions began slowing in the year 2000.  The FAR’s projected BAU greenhouse gas (GHG) radiative forcing (global heatimbalance) in 2010 was approximately 3.5 Watts per square meter (W/m2).  In the B, C, Dscenarios, the  projected 2011 forcing was nearly 3 W/m2.  The actual GHG radiative forcing in 2011 was approximately 2.8 W/m2, so to this point, we’re actually closer to the IPCC FAR’s lower emissions scenarios.

The IPCC FAR ran simulations using models with climate sensitivities (the total amount of global surface warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) of 1.5°C (low), 2.5°C (best), and 4.5°C (high) for doubled CO2 (Figure 1).  However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than is currently believed, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18% lower (for example, the ‘Best’ model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1°C for doubled CO2).

Figure 1: IPCC FAR projected global warming in the BAU emissions scenario usingclimate models with equilibrium climate sensitivities of 1.3°C (low), 2.1°C (best), and 3.8°C (high) for doubled atmospheric CO2

Figure 2 accounts for the lower observed GHG emissions than in the IPCC BAUprojection, and compares its ‘Best’ adjusted projection with the observed global surface warming since 1990.

Figure 2: IPCC FAR BAU global surface temperature projection adjusted to reflect observed GHG radiative forcings 1990-2011 (blue) vs. observed surface temperaturechanges (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.


The IPCC FAR ‘Best’ BAU projected rate of warming fro 1990 to 2012 was 0.25°C per decade.  However, that was based on a scenario with higher emissions than actually occurred.  When accounting for actual GHG emissions, the IPCC average ‘Best’ modelprojection of 0.2°C per decade is within the uncertainty range of the observed rate of warming (0.15 ± 0.08°C) per decade since 1990.


The IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR)was published in 1995, and improved on theFAR by estimating the cooling effects of aerosols — particulates which block sunlight.  The SAR included various human GHG emissions scenarios, so far its scenarios IS92a and b have been closest to actual emissions.

The SAR also maintained the “best estimate” equilibrium climate sensitivity used in theFAR of 2.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.  However, as in the FAR, becauseclimate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than is currently believed, the actual  “best estimate” model sensitivity was closer to 2.1°C for doubled CO2.

Using that sensitivity, and the various IS92 emissions scenarios, the SAR projected the future average global surface temperature change to 2100 (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Projected global mean surface temperature changes from 1990 to 2100 for the full set of IS92 emission scenarios. A climate sensitivity of 2.12°C is assumed.

Figure 4 compares the IPCC SAR global surface warming projection for the most accurate emissions scenario (IS92a) to the observed surface warming from 1990 to 2012. See more at ‘http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm‘ . See also, ‘http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm” (Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time……)


Temperature history provides no evidence for CO2 induced global warming, and in fact, the evidence argues against it.

Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming

Climate Myth… Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

“Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. This is part of the difficulty with the public and the media in understanding that 95% of greenhouse gases are water vapour. The public understand it, in that if you get a fall evening or spring evening and the sky is clear the heat will escape and the temperature will drop and you get frost. If there is a cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour as a greenhouse gas and the temperature stays quite warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at one point a daytime or noon high of 52 degrees Celsius – by midnight that night it was -3.6 degree Celsius. […] That was caused because there is no, or very little, water vapour in the atmosphere and it is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas.” (Tim Ball)

When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn’t a major problem. If CO2 isn’t as powerful as water vapor, which there’s already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn’t be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a ‘positive feedback loop’ in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don’t mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

Last updated on 2 September 2010 by James Frank.

Link to this page

– No obvious global trend of an increase in glacier melts in recent years. (Myth)

The Myth…(and this one is totally ridiculous considering the visual and scientific evidence we now have ).

Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.

Climate Myth…

Glaciers are growing
“[R]eports are coming in from all over the world: for the first time in over 250 years,glaciers in Alaska, Canada, New Zealand, Greenland, and now Norway are growing.”(JamulBlog)

Although Glaciologists measure year-to-year changes in glacier activity, it is the long term changes which provide the basis for statements such as “Global Glacier Recession Continues”. Some Skeptics confuse these issues by cherry picking individual glaciers or by ignoring long term trends. Diversions such as these do not address the most important question of what is the real state of glaciers globally?

The answer is not only clear but it is definitive and based on the scientific literature. Globally glaciers are losing ice at an extensive rate (Figure 1). There are still situations in which glaciers gain or lose ice more than typical for one region or another but the long term trends are all the same, and about 90% of glaciers are shrinking worldwide (Figure 2).

see more..’ http://www.skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Argument0=71

World’s glaciers melting at accelerated pace, leading scientists say –

From the Alps to the Andes, the world’s glaciers are retreating at an accelerated pace – despite the recent controversy over claims by the United Nations’ body of experts, leading climate scientists said today.

Lonnie Thompson, a glaciologist at Ohio State University, said there is strong evidence from a variety of sources of significant melting of glaciers – from the area around Kilimanjaro in Africa to the Alps, the Andes, and the icefields of Antarctica because of a warming climate. Ice is also disappearing at a faster rate in recent decades, he said.

“It is not any single glacier,” he said. “It is very clear that these glaciers are behaving in a similar fashion.”

Enough said.

– No evidence of a sudden change in temperature at the end of the 19th century (Myth)

and answer..

Title: Rapid Climate Change , from AIP.ORG… The American Institute of Physics.

By the 20th century, scientists had rejected old tales of world catastrophe, and were convinced that global climate could change only gradually over many tens of thousands of years. But in the 1950s, a few scientists found evidence that some changes in the past had taken only a few thousand years. During the 1960s and 1970s other data, supported by new theories and new attitudes about human influences, reduced the time a change might require to hundreds of years. Many doubted that such a rapid shift could have befallen the planet as a whole. The 1980s and 1990s brought proof (chiefly from studies of ancient ice) that the global climate could indeed shift, radically and catastrophically, within a century — perhaps even within a decade.

More at ‘http://www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm

–Increases in aerosols diffuse solar radiation from reaching the earth’s surface.

It’s aerosols
Is a Thinning Haze Unveiling the Real Global Warming? (Kerr 2007) points out that the sunlight-reflecting haze that cools much of the planet seems to have thinned over the past decade or so. If real, the thinning would not explain away a century of global warming but it might explain the unexpectedly strong global warming of late, the accelerating loss of glacial ice and much of rising sea levels.

The global dimming trend reversed around 1990 – 15 years after the global warming trendbegan around 1975. So it can’t explain what began the global warming trend. Aerosolshave a cooling effect on Earth’s climate. When aerosols thin, the result is a lack of cooling, not a warming effect. That’s not just semantics – take aerosols out of the equation and in the absence of any other forcings, global temperatures would remain steady.

So what is driving the warming? In the past, solar variations have been the main driver inclimate change. A comparison of solar activity and temperature over the past 1150 years shows a close correlation between solar activity and temperature. However, the correlation ends around 1980 when temperatures started rising but solar levels remained steady.

Another suspect in climate change is cosmic radiation which is thought to increase cloud cover (hence cooling the earth). However, again there has been no correlation between temperature and cosmic ray flux since 1970. In fact, all the usual suspects in naturalclimate change – volcanic activity, orbit wobbles, solar variations are conspicuous in their absence over the past 30 years of long term global warming.

The only forcing that causes warming and also correlates with current temperature rises is atmospheric CO2. It’s risen 100 parts per million over the past 120 years – in the past, that kind of change has taken 5,000 to 20,000 years. As CO2 rose over the 20th century, the only mystery has been why global temperatures actually cooled from 1950 to 1980. I even read one study in 1980 where the researcher posed the question “why aren’t we seeing any global warming with all this CO2 in the air?”

The answer is now apparent with recent studies in aerosol levels and global dimming. Atmospheric aerosols caused a global dimming (eg – less radiation reaching the earth) from 1950 to 1985. In the mid-80’s, the trend reversed and radiation levels at the Earth’s surface began to brighten. From 1950 to the mid-80’s, the cooling effect from aerosolswas masking the warming effect from CO2. When aerosol cooling ended, the current global warming trend began.

Last updated on 26 June 2010 by John Cook. – http://www.skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Argument0=56

|The IPCC’s claims of “unprecedented” warming are untrue &

Late 20th century warmth is no different from warming in the 1930s and 40s when CO2 concentration was less than today.

Climate Change Evidence: ‘Unprecedented’ Warming Is Man-Made (Infographic)

“The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in September 2013, called the evidence for warming of the Earth’s climate system “unequivocal,” and many of the changes observed since 1950 are “unprecedented” over decades to millennia. The scientists rated the findings of previous research according to confidence (from very low to very high) and probability (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). The report said “with 95 percent certainty” that at least half of the observed changes could be accounted for by human activity.

The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1,400 years. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.

There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased.

The frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation has likely increased in North America and Europe.

See link, ‘http://www.livescience.com/40006-united-nations-report-calls-global-warming-unprecedented-infographic.html

Also see,

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

– Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Temperature predictions made by NASA’s James Hansen in 1998 failed to materialize to date.

Hansen’s 1988 results are evidence that the actual climate sensitivity is about 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Climate Myth…

MYTH: Hansen’s 1988 prediction was wrong
‘On June 23, 1988, 
NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong “cause and effect relationship” between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere. At that time, Hansen also produced a model of the future behavior of the globe’s temperature, which he had turned into a video movie that was heavily shopped in Congress. That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure, and IPCC’s 1990 statement about the realistic nature of theseprojections was simply wrong.’ (Pat Michaels)

In 1988, James Hansen projected future warming trends. He used 3 differentscenarios, identified as A, B, and C. Each represented different levels of greenhouse gasemissions.  Scenario A assumed greenhouse gas emissions would continue to accelerate.  Scenario B assumed a slowing and eventually constant rate of growth.Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000.  The actual greenhouse gas emissions since 1988 have been closest to Scenario B. As shown below, the actual warming has been less than Scenario B. see more at http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm’

and Finally….

Nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented about current level of earth’s warmth

There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.

Climate Myth…

MTYH: It’s not happening
“…these global warming studies that now we’re seeing (are) a bunch of snake oil science.” (Sarah Palin)

The 2009 State of the Climate report of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), released in mid-2010, brings together many different series of data “from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean”. The conclusion? All of these independent lines of evidence tell us unequivocally that the Earth is warming.

The very accessible 10-page summary examines the trends for 10 key climate indicators using a total of 47 different sets of data. All of the indicators expected to increase in a warming world, are in fact increasing, and all that are expected to decrease, are decreasing:

See full link at : ‘http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm

As far as Ms’ Okyay’s ‘Media Invovlement’ and claims of ‘Making it Rich’… I leave that rhetoric to those who have the time for it, and its idiocy.

I respectfully offer this rebuttal to all the claims made by Okyay’s ‘arcticle’….. Scientific research continues to overwhelmingly prove what the bulk of scientists, climatologist, who are not on the Koch brothers ‘ payrolls, as are most of our GOP and some Democratic legislators, say about our current and persistantly dangerous situation is.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s