You left out a few things in your attempt tp recruit Fox News viewers: Tree ring samples from around the planet indicate longer growing seasons and warmer growing seasons in the last 150 years, the fact that the AVERAGE temperature across the Artic is increasing at twice the rate of the rest of the planet, that glaciers on mountains across the planet are in retreat, and that sea temperatures from Antartica to the Arctic are rising
I just love it how dumb (and anonymous) morons throw Fox News charges aroudn (FYI, I'm not American and haven't ever seen Fox News on TV, just a few clips on the internet) - that kind of shows how dumb they really are, if that is ALL that they are able to project on their critics. Kind of shows who's the dumb and sentimental party around. Ad rem:
Tree rings:
"Hot and Cold Summers
(23 Aug 04)
A paper titled "European seasonal and annual temperature variability, trends, and extremes since 1500" was published in the issue dated March 5, 2004, of the AAAS magazine named Science. It seems that the authors concluded that the summer of 2003 was the hottest summer in Europe since 1500.
It also seems than Hans Erren does not share that conclusion, and in an article at A debatable European summer temperature since 1500 he suggests that the summer of 1540 rivals the summer of 2003 in the category of hot European summers.
Among the points of contention are the accuracy of tree ring, and other, proxies for temperatures, as well as the validity of extrapolation of small geographic area information to large geographic areas. You may find the discussion interesting.
Let me mention an aspect that particularly caught my attention. In the comparison of the Luterbacher et al. graph with a graph based on the Pfister index, the Pfister index indicates that the notorious summer of 1816 was particularly cold, which seems quite plausible to me; the Luterbacher et al. graph does not, which seems not quite so plausible to me.
Was there a tree ring problem, an extrapolation problem, or what?"
Ice mass: lost the link somewhere, but there have been credible papers published that the total ice mass of Antarctide is actually GAINING in recent years. Similar with e.g. Pacific temperatures, they've been falling.
Oh, and last but not least: the pre-industrial levels of CO2 (claimed 280-290 CO2 ppmv before Industrial Revolution) have been FALSIFIED. Heard me? It's a FRAUD.
How does THAT reflect on the credibility of people making such claims?
The polar bears seem incredibly adapated to living on ice -- the article says they live their whole lives on ice. Their natural range is circumpolar (http://www.solcomhouse.com/polarbears.htm [solcomhouse.com] ). I know their feet, fur and sense of smell are all optimized for living in ice. I'm sure there are more things.
There have been things like that happening before - between a few last big Ice Ages, a few species have evolved to take advantage of the shallow marsh areas, like "big beaver". The climate changed - I don't think it was due to SUVs or possibly not even due to greenhouse effect, or not by itself - and the species died out.
The entire premise and begging the question in such articles is always the same, the same theme of neurosis running there: us bad, bad humans, repent, go back to nature, don't make all those evil industries. It's always trying to create this imaginary hobgoblin to alarm us. It's naive to expect politics and media to try to enlighten. The purpose is to scare and control, not help. So EVEN if those polar bears are dying, it may have nothing to do with us really - the plausible impression merely serves a useful goal in political games. It's all bullshit, I say.
And BTW, come on, this is all a SOCIAL GAME: to further your agenda, to spread FUD, to get your critics ridiculed/killed, to spread your religion/cult - for instance eco-cult, to proselytize, to feel the mystique, to get grants, journalists to be able to write articles about Doom of The Day (they have to make a living after all), govt to get rationale for more regulations (after all it's not govt who pays for it, it's somebody else in society), to do the following:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence, clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblin, all of them imaginary. -- Mencken
I say that there are real bits and pieces of problems in nature that get blown out of proportions by the moronic public and well-intentioned, but gullible people like you, first by massive reports of "sheep blinded by UV in Chile" and mass panic, then by politicians and econuts making their "whale sanctuaries" out of this, worshipping the dumb mammals as gods.
If there is kernel of real stuff, the facts, in this, it only serves the politics for dummies. I say it's all bullshit, even if the phenomenon is real - that serves merely as a tool for inflicting social pressure on critics.
Ozone layer recovering, like that National Geographic article reports? Well, who gives a fuck? We need more doom.
Or, look for the evidence that Goddard numbers have been cooked. Like, the calculation methods that they use are out of sync with data collected from ships for instance.
Do/did you have a better source of data than the atmospheric scientists?
1. Well, have you bothered to read the links I posted?
2. Do YOU have claims of any?
3. How do you know you can even trust them? There is evidence of fraud and "sagecraft" for publicity and grants after all:
Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified "Siple curve", but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the "hockey curve" of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15]. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion "climatic" dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease, seems to be persistent.
Oh, and I wouldn't trust ANYTHING that 'new scientist' is publishing: it's total trash. I would have double-checked Archimedes law if they published article on it.
It appears that playing an agenda for publicity with dubious claims is catching up to more and more scientists and people working around science (such as science reporters), sadly. The general attitude of such people is throw any claim supporting this vague feeling, smth plausible, not really adequate, since it is all taken on faith anyway. This is the standard approach of the whiners presenting their version of Standard Litany of Doom.
Actually, the effects of the depletion of the ozone layer and global warming on each other is pretty circular- UVB destroys small phytoplankton in the Antarctic. This contributes to global warming [see HERE], as well as a collapse in the polar and sub-polar oceanic food supply.
I could point out dozens of flaws in this theory (e.g. what's the actual, real rate of such destruction? how do you know if it is anywhere near significant?) and counter that competent scientists themselves believe little in such shallow factoids as you claim, e.g. here:
For a short period each year, the edge of the ozone hole passes
over Tierra del Fuego, at the southern end of the South American
continent. This has led to a flurry of reports of medical damage
to humans and livestock. Dermatologists claim that they are seeing
more patients with sun-related conditions, nursery owners report
damage to plants, a sailor says that his yacht's dacron sails have
become brittle, and a rancher declares that 50 of his sheep,
grazing at high altitudes, suffer "temporary cataracts" in the
spring. (_Newsweek_, 9 December 1991, p. 43; NY Times, 27 July
1991, p. C4; 27 March 1992, p. A7).
These claims are hard to believe. At such a high latitude,
springtime UV-B is naturally very low and the temporary increase
due to ozone depletion still results in a UV fluence that is well
below that found at lower latitudes. Moreover, the climate of
Patagonia is notoriously cold and wet. (There is actually more of
a problem in the summer, after the hole breaks up and ozone-poor
air drifts north. The ozone depletion is smaller, but the
background UV intensity is much higher.) There may well be effects
on _local_ species, adapted to low UV levels, but even these are
not expected to appear so soon. It was only in 1987 that the hole
grew large enough to give rise to significant UV increases
in southern Chile, and cataracts and malignant melanomas take many
years to develop."
The deterioration of the Ozone layer was very well proven, and Crutzen, Molina, and Rowland won the Nobel for conclusively proving that CFCs caused the depletion of the layer.
Now the issue is why this is happening - the argument about whether this and CFC ban is causation or merely correlation could probably go on forever.
However, if the phenomenon is cyclical (after all ozone is produced by UV radiation from regular O2 oxygen, so increasing/decreasing ozone levels might be just yet another complex cyclical phenomenon), we're going to find out. This might take time, though.
1. Ozone layer as such has nothing to do with global warming. You're terribly confused. Ozone layer is protecting us against UV radiation and not against the heat buildup - just what would be the physical principle behind it? Ozone is merely O3, as far as I know it has no special qualities re heat conductance either way. Besides, it's thin anyway. I'm no physicist, if there is anybody like that around here (doubt it, 99% are slashtrollers), please explain, but I doubt it has much to do with greenhouse effect as such.
Nonetheless, even "ozone layer" disappearing is a lie as well: it appears that the phenomenon is cyclical. It's just they found it 10 years after starting the measurements, cried wolf when they found it shrinking, and then "forgot" to say oops when ozone started to build up again.
...
4. More UVB in our atmosphere, faster global warming and unpredicatable climate change.
Oh please, whether absorbed by ozone layer in the atmosphere or in any other place, absorbing x joules of energy is absorbing it all the same! The atmosphere would _absorb_ exactly the same amount of energy with ozone layer and without it! The big question is what is happening to RETAINING energy.
More like there's an Army of Moronic Doom troopers out there who whine about the world coming to an end anything happens, say, there's a year 1000 to turn around, or the metals are to run out and the globe is going to become desolate desert by year 2000 - see that maniac Paul Ehrlich, and now polar bears are dying.
That's FUD designed to put the gullible in state of fear I say. Actual evidence is poor, it's just the Moronic Troopers never bother to check the evidence well because guess what... they don't need any hard evidence!
It's not about "proving" smth. It's about having enough evidence and once you take a good look at the evidence of the maniacs it turns out to be outright falsification like 'hockey stick' fraud, or abuse, like declaring contemporary ice cores as pre-industrial ice cores to get "correct" CO2 levels.
Morons don't need good evidence, all they need are their own "feelings". That's witch-hunt mentality, no more.
"I think that you misunderstood most of the skeptics. I don't think anyone is doubting that the globe _is_ getting warmer. You can't really argue with hard facts."..except the facts are not really that hard:
http://www.john-daly.com/
Look at section " `Global Mean Temperature' - Disputed Data " (no direct link). It appears that where the meteo stations have been properly maintained in last two centuries - Western Europe and United States - there is no observable global warming right up to 1990s.
It's only if you factor in the poorly maintained stations elsewhere that you get the effect. Data should read "global warming everywhere except where the major industrial powers have been producing its CO2" - come on!
There's more data than that, but the darling of the global warming scare maniacs is the CO2 level claimed to supposedly have been 280-290 ppm in the preindustrial.
The problem is - this is bollocks. The "scientists" in question have falsified the data and this single lie has been repeated over and over in the same publications, trying to create impression of many independent original sources, whereas in reality there was just one:
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
"The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was "too high". This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.
An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence[3, 9], solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The "corrected" ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure 1 B) , and reproduced in countless publications as a famous "Siple curve". Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the "age assumption"[10], but they failed[9]."
Flooding with poor propaganda is just that, a propaganda. It's probably like that "study" with certain species of butterfly being given nothing but GM plant to eat and then concluding "GM plants are killing the butteflies". This type of organizations is filled with maniacs bent on spreading hysteria or else they lose publicity. Seals dying, bears cannibalizing on each other, seas rising (even though there is good evidence sea level has actually FALLEN by some 20 cm since the 19th century), omigod, the sky is falling as result of global warming.
Best to ignore that nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
You left out a few things in your attempt tp recruit Fox News viewers: Tree ring samples from around the planet indicate longer growing seasons and warmer growing seasons in the last 150 years, the fact that the AVERAGE temperature across the Artic is increasing at twice the rate of the rest of the planet, that glaciers on mountains across the planet are in retreat, and that sea temperatures from Antartica to the Arctic are rising
u terbacher.htm
I just love it how dumb (and anonymous) morons throw Fox News charges aroudn (FYI, I'm not American and haven't ever seen Fox News on TV, just a few clips on the internet) - that kind of shows how dumb they really are, if that is ALL that they are able to project on their critics. Kind of shows who's the dumb and sentimental party around. Ad rem:
Tree rings:
"Hot and Cold Summers (23 Aug 04)
A paper titled "European seasonal and annual temperature variability, trends, and extremes since 1500" was published in the issue dated March 5, 2004, of the AAAS magazine named Science. It seems that the authors concluded that the summer of 2003 was the hottest summer in Europe since 1500.
It also seems than Hans Erren does not share that conclusion, and in an article at A debatable European summer temperature since 1500 he suggests that the summer of 1540 rivals the summer of 2003 in the category of hot European summers.
Among the points of contention are the accuracy of tree ring, and other, proxies for temperatures, as well as the validity of extrapolation of small geographic area information to large geographic areas. You may find the discussion interesting.
Let me mention an aspect that particularly caught my attention. In the comparison of the Luterbacher et al. graph with a graph based on the Pfister index, the Pfister index indicates that the notorious summer of 1816 was particularly cold, which seems quite plausible to me; the Luterbacher et al. graph does not, which seems not quite so plausible to me.
Was there a tree ring problem, an extrapolation problem, or what?"
http://members.lycos.nl/errenwijlens/co2/errenvsl
Ice mass: lost the link somewhere, but there have been credible papers published that the total ice mass of Antarctide is actually GAINING in recent years. Similar with e.g. Pacific temperatures, they've been falling.
Oh, and last but not least: the pre-industrial levels of CO2 (claimed 280-290 CO2 ppmv before Industrial Revolution) have been FALSIFIED. Heard me? It's a FRAUD.
How does THAT reflect on the credibility of people making such claims?
The polar bears seem incredibly adapated to living on ice -- the article says they live their whole lives on ice. Their natural range is circumpolar (http://www.solcomhouse.com/polarbears.htm [solcomhouse.com] ). I know their feet, fur and sense of smell are all optimized for living in ice. I'm sure there are more things.
There have been things like that happening before - between a few last big Ice Ages, a few species have evolved to take advantage of the shallow marsh areas, like "big beaver". The climate changed - I don't think it was due to SUVs or possibly not even due to greenhouse effect, or not by itself - and the species died out.
The entire premise and begging the question in such articles is always the same, the same theme of neurosis running there: us bad, bad humans, repent, go back to nature, don't make all those evil industries. It's always trying to create this imaginary hobgoblin to alarm us. It's naive to expect politics and media to try to enlighten. The purpose is to scare and control, not help. So EVEN if those polar bears are dying, it may have nothing to do with us really - the plausible impression merely serves a useful goal in political games. It's all bullshit, I say.
And BTW, come on, this is all a SOCIAL GAME: to further your agenda, to spread FUD, to get your critics ridiculed/killed, to spread your religion/cult - for instance eco-cult, to proselytize, to feel the mystique, to get grants, journalists to be able to write articles about Doom of The Day (they have to make a living after all), govt to get rationale for more regulations (after all it's not govt who pays for it, it's somebody else in society), to do the following:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence, clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblin, all of them imaginary. -- Mencken
I say that there are real bits and pieces of problems in nature that get blown out of proportions by the moronic public and well-intentioned, but gullible people like you, first by massive reports of "sheep blinded by UV in Chile" and mass panic, then by politicians and econuts making their "whale sanctuaries" out of this, worshipping the dumb mammals as gods.
If there is kernel of real stuff, the facts, in this, it only serves the politics for dummies. I say it's all bullshit, even if the phenomenon is real - that serves merely as a tool for inflicting social pressure on critics.
Ozone layer recovering, like that National Geographic article reports? Well, who gives a fuck? We need more doom.
Or, look for the evidence that Goddard numbers have been cooked. Like, the calculation methods that they use are out of sync with data collected from ships for instance.
Do/did you have a better source of data than the atmospheric scientists?
1. Well, have you bothered to read the links I posted?
2. Do YOU have claims of any?
3. How do you know you can even trust them? There is evidence of fraud and "sagecraft" for publicity and grants after all:
Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified "Siple curve", but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the "hockey curve" of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15]. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion "climatic" dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease, seems to be persistent.
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
Read the whole paper. It's pretty enlightening.
Oh, and I wouldn't trust ANYTHING that 'new scientist' is publishing: it's total trash. I would have double-checked Archimedes law if they published article on it.
It appears that playing an agenda for publicity with dubious claims is catching up to more and more scientists and people working around science (such as science reporters), sadly. The general attitude of such people is throw any claim supporting this vague feeling, smth plausible, not really adequate, since it is all taken on faith anyway. This is the standard approach of the whiners presenting their version of Standard Litany of Doom.
Actually, the effects of the depletion of the ozone layer and global warming on each other is pretty circular- UVB destroys small phytoplankton in the Antarctic. This contributes to global warming [see HERE], as well as a collapse in the polar and sub-polar oceanic food supply.
I could point out dozens of flaws in this theory (e.g. what's the actual, real rate of such destruction? how do you know if it is anywhere near significant?) and counter that competent scientists themselves believe little in such shallow factoids as you claim, e.g. here:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/uv/
"Subject: 7.) Are sheep going blind in Chile?
If they are, it's not because of ozone depletion.
For a short period each year, the edge of the ozone hole passes over Tierra del Fuego, at the southern end of the South American continent. This has led to a flurry of reports of medical damage to humans and livestock. Dermatologists claim that they are seeing more patients with sun-related conditions, nursery owners report damage to plants, a sailor says that his yacht's dacron sails have become brittle, and a rancher declares that 50 of his sheep, grazing at high altitudes, suffer "temporary cataracts" in the spring. (_Newsweek_, 9 December 1991, p. 43; NY Times, 27 July 1991, p. C4; 27 March 1992, p. A7).
These claims are hard to believe. At such a high latitude, springtime UV-B is naturally very low and the temporary increase due to ozone depletion still results in a UV fluence that is well below that found at lower latitudes. Moreover, the climate of Patagonia is notoriously cold and wet. (There is actually more of a problem in the summer, after the hole breaks up and ozone-poor air drifts north. The ozone depletion is smaller, but the background UV intensity is much higher.) There may well be effects on _local_ species, adapted to low UV levels, but even these are not expected to appear so soon. It was only in 1987 that the hole grew large enough to give rise to significant UV increases in southern Chile, and cataracts and malignant melanomas take many years to develop."
The deterioration of the Ozone layer was very well proven, and Crutzen, Molina, and Rowland won the Nobel for conclusively proving that CFCs caused the depletion of the layer.
8 05_030805_ozone.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0
Now the issue is why this is happening - the argument about whether this and CFC ban is causation or merely correlation could probably go on forever.
However, if the phenomenon is cyclical (after all ozone is produced by UV radiation from regular O2 oxygen, so increasing/decreasing ozone levels might be just yet another complex cyclical phenomenon), we're going to find out. This might take time, though.
Look here:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/intro/
1. Ozone layer as such has nothing to do with global warming. You're terribly confused. Ozone layer is protecting us against UV radiation and not against the heat buildup - just what would be the physical principle behind it? Ozone is merely O3, as far as I know it has no special qualities re heat conductance either way. Besides, it's thin anyway. I'm no physicist, if there is anybody like that around here (doubt it, 99% are slashtrollers), please explain, but I doubt it has much to do with greenhouse effect as such.
...
4. More UVB in our atmosphere, faster global warming and unpredicatable climate change.
Nonetheless, even "ozone layer" disappearing is a lie as well: it appears that the phenomenon is cyclical. It's just they found it 10 years after starting the measurements, cried wolf when they found it shrinking, and then "forgot" to say oops when ozone started to build up again.
Oh please, whether absorbed by ozone layer in the atmosphere or in any other place, absorbing x joules of energy is absorbing it all the same! The atmosphere would _absorb_ exactly the same amount of energy with ozone layer and without it! The big question is what is happening to RETAINING energy.
More like there's an Army of Moronic Doom troopers out there who whine about the world coming to an end anything happens, say, there's a year 1000 to turn around, or the metals are to run out and the globe is going to become desolate desert by year 2000 - see that maniac Paul Ehrlich, and now polar bears are dying. That's FUD designed to put the gullible in state of fear I say. Actual evidence is poor, it's just the Moronic Troopers never bother to check the evidence well because guess what... they don't need any hard evidence! It's not about "proving" smth. It's about having enough evidence and once you take a good look at the evidence of the maniacs it turns out to be outright falsification like 'hockey stick' fraud, or abuse, like declaring contemporary ice cores as pre-industrial ice cores to get "correct" CO2 levels. Morons don't need good evidence, all they need are their own "feelings". That's witch-hunt mentality, no more.
"I think that you misunderstood most of the skeptics. I don't think anyone is doubting that the globe _is_ getting warmer. You can't really argue with hard facts." ..except the facts are not really that hard:
http://www.john-daly.com/
Look at section " `Global Mean Temperature' - Disputed Data " (no direct link). It appears that where the meteo stations have been properly maintained in last two centuries - Western Europe and United States - there is no observable global warming right up to 1990s.
It's only if you factor in the poorly maintained stations elsewhere that you get the effect. Data should read "global warming everywhere except where the major industrial powers have been producing its CO2" - come on!
There's more data than that, but the darling of the global warming scare maniacs is the CO2 level claimed to supposedly have been 280-290 ppm in the preindustrial. The problem is - this is bollocks. The "scientists" in question have falsified the data and this single lie has been repeated over and over in the same publications, trying to create impression of many independent original sources, whereas in reality there was just one: http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm "The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was "too high". This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple. An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence[3, 9], solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The "corrected" ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure 1 B) , and reproduced in countless publications as a famous "Siple curve". Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the "age assumption"[10], but they failed[9]."
Flooding with poor propaganda is just that, a propaganda. It's probably like that "study" with certain species of butterfly being given nothing but GM plant to eat and then concluding "GM plants are killing the butteflies". This type of organizations is filled with maniacs bent on spreading hysteria or else they lose publicity. Seals dying, bears cannibalizing on each other, seas rising (even though there is good evidence sea level has actually FALLEN by some 20 cm since the 19th century), omigod, the sky is falling as result of global warming. Best to ignore that nonsense.