# I'm sick of this Global Warming! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 16, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440 "2013-08-16T18:57:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/181 "2013-09-03T20:03:54Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > So GW is wrong because you can find instances of people dying in the cold. No! Learn science. The cold is BECAUSE of global warming. The unusual (and sometimes record) cold and snow is due to warming. Sure you might think that sounds crazy, because global warming used to make winters warmer, but now it makes record cold and snow, so yes, dead people and animals from record snowfall and brutal cold is global warming. It’s how science works. Science is always right because as things change, science changes. Now that cold is increasing, it is due to warming. It’s this sort of fluid, and quite changeable science that you can not defeat. You might be wrong, but science isn’t. Don’t deny this. You know in your heart it’s true. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/182 "2013-09-03T20:20:05Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > It’s not just the Greenies. Us Browns and Greys also think you’re a total dipshit. I understand. It’s because you deny science. But it doesn’t matter, science is right, and you are wrong. Deniers like to say unscientific things, like “ANTARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT AT RECORD HIGH” [http://www.thegwpf.org/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-record-high/](http://www.thegwpf.org/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-record-high/) It’s because they hate science. Science says global warming is making the sea ice grow, so people who point out it is growing are wrong. > [@](#): > > Antarctic sea ice is expanding. Blame global warming for that, too, say Dutch scientists. [Antarctic Sea Ice Grows as Result of Warming | Climate Central](http://www.climatecentral.org/news/antarctic-sea-ice-grows-as-result-of-warming-15816) > [@](#): > > Global warming helps expand Antarctic sea ice [Study: Global warming helps expand Antarctic sea ice | The Daily Caller](http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/01/study-global-warming-helps-expand-antarctic-sea-ice/) You see? Cold is due to warming, which is why it makes me sick. All those people freezing and even dead, and all the while selfish bastards and short sited people keep burning fossil fuels. Not the people here, I’m sure the ones typing day in and day out aren’t part of the problem. That’s why you should listen to them and do like they do. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/183 "2013-09-03T21:50:04Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Why no hurricanes? If we are in such a hot period, then why are the number of Atlantic Hurricanes dropping? Hasn’t been one so far here. > Al Gore was big on the “natural disaster theme” of AGW-sounds like the corellation might be a bit off!:o And thank you for showing all that you did not pay any attention to the previous thread, if mother nature throws us a hurricane it was bound to be worse than usual thanks to all that extra matter (water vapor) and energy in the way. But there was also a chance that things like an increase in wind shear thanks to the warming was going to work towards preventing several hurricanes from forming. As I even pointed before: it may be one of the few good things global warming can make, but as usual one data year does not make much of a difference. Unfortunately that item, reported by climate scientists before, does not fit the sorry narrative of the deniers that claim that scientists are only alarmists, so even that item has to be denied by the clowns too. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/184 "2013-09-03T22:05:01Z")
You see how busy Gigo is? he doesn’t have time to explain the theory of global warming, or even how it’s not a theory. Scientists are busy, and explaining global warming theory is hard. Or explaining how it’s not a theory. Either way, it’s right and you are wrong. It’s science. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/185 "2013-09-04T00:39:14Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > You see how busy Gigo is? he doesn’t have time to explain the theory of global warming, or even how it’s not a theory. Scientists are busy, and explaining global warming theory is hard. > > Or explaining how it’s not a theory. Either way, it’s right and you are wrong. It’s science. Nah why should I be busy when all the lifting was made already by big orgs like NASA? What I only see is just cowards that realize that it is a tall order to discredit big guys like NASA and NOAA so the coward clowns think that it is brave to attempt to discredit a poster on a message board. Not impressed. Like Evolution AGW is a valid theory that also has facts on its side. > **[Evidence - NASA Science](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/)** > > Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of > [@](#): > > Certain facts about Earth’s climate are not in dispute: > > ``` > The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. > Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3 > > ``` > > Scientific Consensus > > Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. > > The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling: > Sea level rise > > ``` > Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4 > > ``` > > Global temperature rise > > ``` > All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7 > > ``` > > Warming oceans > > ``` > The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8 > > ``` > > Shrinking ice sheets > > ``` > The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005. > > ``` > > Declining Arctic sea ice > > ``` > Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.9 > > ``` > > Glacial retreat > > ``` > Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.10 > > ``` > > Extreme events > > ``` > The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11 > > ``` > > Ocean acidification > > ``` > Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.1 > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/186 "2013-09-04T12:39:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Like Evolution AGW is a valid theory that also has facts on its side. Well, at least you finally said something about the theory of AGW. Now give us the link to skepticalscience (or any other site) where we can read the theory. It will only take a second of your valuable time. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/187 "2013-09-04T12:42:07Z")
It just makes me sick when good people like Gigobuster have to type out volumes of text on a message board. There should be one place where all the evidence is presented, so it could be linked to. It would stop all this fighting over things. You start by presenting the theory (which there isn’t) and then show how the evidence supports the theory (if there was one), and then science wins. ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/188 "2013-09-04T12:47:01Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I was mocking your claim about 95% of the scientific community. Duh. > Ok, just so we are clear, the precise theory which, according to you, 95% of the scientific community supports, is that: > > (1) The climate has warmed in recent decades; and > > (2) Human activities have contributed adversely to global climate change. > > Do I understand you correctly? Ya got me Brazzers. I misrepresented the 97-98% from the poorly remembered cite as 95% and “climate scientist” as “the scientific community” in an earlier post. That really shores up support for your POV. After your inspiring example, I’m sure many of the posters here will want to shove their head up their ass to see how long they can function without oxygen too. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/189 "2013-09-04T13:29:13Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > the precise theory which, according to you, 95% of the scientific community supports, is that: > > (1) The climate has warmed in recent decades; and > > (2) Human activities have contributed adversely to global climate change. That avoids the very heart of the issue of course. Climate (and the global energy balance) changes, it always has. AGW theory (theory of anthropogenic global warming) predicts certain changes that show the change is due to increased greenhouse gas emissions from human beings. As well as deforestation and land use changes. It’s a vital theory in that natural climate change does not show the same signs, and it is a key point in presenting evidence for AGW. Since obviously the climate of the planet has changed a lot, including drastic changes that dwarf anything we have ever experienced, the human signal is essential to knowing if, and to what degree, human activities are changing things. This can easily be illustrated by an example most people can grasp. (that the resident “internet agw experts” never talk about the essential facts is quite telling btw) When monitoring a stream for flow rate, quantity, quality of the water and wildlife, certain markers reveal human activity as a cause of pollution and damage to the stream system. When these are observed we know somewhere upstream or in the atmosphere there is an [Anthropogenic](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropogenic) source. Mercury, arsenic, lead or toxic chemical compounds that don’t exist in nature are a sure sign. Acidity from the sulfur in fuels can be detected, even mud and soil can be from clear cutting forest upstream. Fertilizer runoff, oils or gasoline, even human waste (shit and piss and such) can be measured. exotic wildlife that should not be in the stream is a human cause. Radionuclides, trash, drugs, ash and charcoal from human fires, all of it is an Anthropogenic issue. The other sources are considered natural, wild fires, volcanic dust or ash, landslides, the normal level of feces and organic waste. These can also damage a stream (or river). The important thing is, for this example, is that **We can detect the difference** , and know how much damage is from human activity. Be it directly upstream or a coal plant spewing mercury a hundred miles upwind. Or a leaking reactor in Fukushima. Or a medical waste processing plant. A tractor trailer full of Crisco or some kids pouring laundry detergent into the water, we can measure and know what the cause is. For AGW theory it’s not that cut and dried, but certainly there are specific predictions and markers that tell us that a change is due to a human cause. That the self proclaimed supporters of AGW theory don’t simply do this, but rather type out endless insults and dreary asides, that makes me sick. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/190 "2013-09-04T13:54:22Z")
While I was writing the above, which was easy as pie and took a few minutes, Gigobuster was still doing [his idiot thing](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16634324&postcount=166) It makes me sick that he is actually a paid shill who makes global warming supporters look bad. Obviously he knows almost nothing about climate science, AGW theory or how to compose a thoughtful post. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/191 "2013-09-04T14:49:39Z")
> [@sylmar](#): > > Ya got me Brazzers. I misrepresented the 97-98% from the poorly remembered cite as 95% and “climate scientist” as “the scientific community” in an earlier post. Umm, then I will re-phrase my question. First, is it your position that the theory which is supported by at least 95% of either “the scientific community” or “climate scientists” is that (1) The climate has warmed in recent decades; and (2) Human activities have contributed adversely to global climate change. ? Second, is it your position that the same theory says nothing about water vapor feedback? > [@](#): > > That really shores up support for your POV. Well it does seem that you are having difficulty setting forth exactly what the theory is you referred to. But we’ll see, I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/192 "2013-09-04T15:12:28Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That avoids the very heart of the issue of course. Well of course. When warmistas want to claim that lots of people agree with them, they typically are referring to a version of the theory which is watered down to the point of being practically meaningless. In short, a bait and switch. In any discussion of a scientific claim, hypothesis, or theory, it’s totally reasonable for skeptics to demand that the proponents set forth exactly what is being claimed, hypothesized, or theorized. And if the proponents are unable to do it, they lose at the threshold. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/193 "2013-09-04T15:52:32Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > In any discussion of a scientific claim, hypothesis, or theory, it’s totally reasonable for skeptics to demand that the proponents set forth exactly what is being claimed, hypothesized, or theorized. Not when it comes to the most important, most dangerous threat to mankind ever. Then science doesn’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/194 "2013-09-04T15:54:06Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Global warming is killing the planet. Well, to be clear, it’s not really going to do very much as far as killing all life on the planet; temperatures have been a LOT hotter over geological history than they’re forecast to be according to AGW. ’ However, it’ll make things uncomfortable for mankind, and in many ways, fundamentally change the geographic value of various land areas in a way not seen in history. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/195 "2013-09-04T16:02:25Z")
> [@bump](#): > > ’ > However, it’ll make things uncomfortable for mankind, and in many ways, fundamentally change the geographic value of various land areas in a way not seen in history. Please tell me 2 specific changes which will take place; summarize the evidence that they will in fact take place; and summarize the evidence that they are unprecedented. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/196 "2013-09-04T16:07:48Z")
> [@bump](#): > > However, it’ll make things uncomfortable for mankind, Can’t happen soon enough. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/197 "2013-09-04T16:41:47Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Please tell me 2 specific changes which will take place; summarize the evidence that they will in fact take place; and summarize the evidence that they are unprecedented. You really expect anyone here to actually engage in a scientific discussion? I will be happy to play the Devil’s Advocate if you please. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/198 "2013-09-04T17:50:06Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > For AGW theory it’s not that cut and dried, but certainly there are specific predictions and markers that tell us that a change is due to a human cause. > > That the self proclaimed supporters of AGW theory don’t simply do this, but rather type out endless insults and dreary asides, that makes me sick. Well, from the other side it has to be noticed that your line of thinking makes others sick. It was used by groups that denied that tobacco smoke caused cancer, that made many sick and had to die before we realized how much that FUD from the tobacco companies was really stupid. Same it is with the ones that this late claim that scientists are not reporting how CO2 and other global warming gases released by humans are affecting the atmosphere and the oceans. Scientists actually do this, it is only the stupid deniers that do this, real skeptics already know all that, the only thing they quibble about (as it is the only honest thing left for them) is to report that the effects of the items already detected will not be as bad as expected. The stupid comes by claiming that the scientists are not investigating, recording and reporting about those markers and how many scientists are seeing their predictions on those markers confirmed. > **[10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change](https://skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html)** > > The NOAA State of the Climate 2009 report is an excellent summary of the many lines of evidence that global warming is happening. Acknowledging the fact that the planet is warming leads to the all important question - what's causing global warming?... > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > To get a closer look, click on the pic above to get a high-rez 1024x768 version (you’re all welcome to use this graphic in your Powerpoint presentations). Or to dig even deeper, here’s more info on each indicator (including links to the original data or peer-reviewed research): > > > > 1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let’s look at more evidence that we’re responsible for the rise in CO2 levels. > > > > 2. When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006). > > > > 3. This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you’d expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006). > > > > 4. Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005). > > > > 5. So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What’s the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). > > … More in the link and in the cites. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/199 "2013-09-04T17:56:44Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Please tell me 2 specific changes which will take place; summarize the evidence that they will in fact take place; and summarize the evidence that they are unprecedented. Seriously? Next thing you know, I’ll be having to defend evolution and the spherical earth as well. I’m not even going to dignify that idiocy with a serious response. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/200 "2013-09-04T18:01:02Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > While I was writing the above, which was easy as pie and took a few minutes, Gigobuster was still doing [his idiot thing](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16634324&postcount=166) > > It makes me sick that he is actually a paid shill who makes global warming supporters look bad. Obviously he knows almost nothing about climate science, AGW theory or how to compose a thoughtful post. As the previous post of mine showed, it is you the one that can not find a good cite to support what you say. Everyone that looks at your link can see for themselves that you are not touching the item of who is really lying with malice about the climate scientists. Your refusal to deal with it only confirms and certifies who is, on top of an idiot, just a coward for not making any effort to clean up or just even criticize the ones that even US judges are realizing are only defaming science and seeding FUD. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=11)