"Global warming makes North Atlantic less salty"
And the second article is from The New Scientist, August 2007, which breathlessly proclaims the opposite.
"Global warming makes North Atlantic more salty"
These people will claim anything, eh? Even if one accepts that each of these articles in not an outrightly mendacious attempt to shore up the AGW theory—and, of course, the fat wads of funding that accompany that myth—the only other conclusion that we can draw is that the sceintists don't have a fucking clue what they are measuring or, indeed, how the global climate actually works.
If they cannot even agree, in a period of two years, whether the Atlantic is getting saltier or not, why should we believe these idiots when they predict catastrophe deriving from the rise in levels of a gas that only makes up, on average, 0.003% of our atmosphere?
Whether we do believe them or not, we certainly should think really, really carefully before committing trillions of pounds to fighting a problem which may not actually exist. Especially when the costs are now expected to be higher than we initially thought.
As Booker reported last Sunday, Prof William Nordhaus, of Yale, has just published calculations showing that cuts in greenhouse gas emissions on the scale proposed by Gore might possibly save $12 trillion (£12,000bn) - but that their cost would be nearly three times as much, $34 trillion, more than half the world's GDP.
These are truly terrifying figures and we should be very wary of committing this cash on the say-so of a bunch of people who don't know what the fuck they are playing at.