@dannym3141, I understand that you are "stepping out of the debate," but, for your edification, I'll respond here... And, for the record, I am not "funded" by Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Solar, or Big Green. Nor am I a professor of climate or environmental science at a State University (and don't have a political agenda around this issue other than to help promote sound reasoning and critical thinking). I do, however, hold a doctorate and can read the scientific literature critically. So, in response to what climate change "believers" say, it's worth noting that no one is actually taking the temperature of the seas. They simply see sea levels rising and say "global warming," but how do they know? It's a model they came up with. But far from certain, just a theory. Like Antarctica melting, but then someone finds out that it's due to volcanic activity underneath, and so on.

And also, why is the heat then staying in the water and not going into the atmosphere? So, they then have to come up with a theory on top of the other theory... So the heat is supposedly being stored deep below where the sensors cannot detect it. Great. And this is happening because...some other theory or another that can't be proven either. And then they have to somehow come up with a theory as to how they know that the deep sea warming is due to human activity and not to other causes. I'm not denying that any of this happens, just expressing skepticism, meaning that no one really knows for sure. That folks would "bet the house on it" does not serve as any proof, at all.

The discussion on the sift pivots from "global warming" to vilifying skeptics, not about the original skepticism discussed, that there is catastrophic man-caused global warming going on. Three issues yet to be proven beyond skepticism: 1) that there is global warming; 2) that it is caused by human activity; 3) that it's a big problem.

When I ask about one, they dance around to another one of these points, rather than responding. And all they have in response to the research is the IPCC "report" on which all their science is based. And most if not all published "believers" say that the heat "may be hiding" in the deep ocean, not that they "certainly know it is" like they seem to claim.

They don't have knowledge that the scientists who are actively working on this do not have, do they? It's like the IRS saying, "My computer crashed." The IPCC says, "The ocean ate my global warming!"

Here are some links worth reading:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274

And, from a different rebuttal: "Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims."

Here's the entire piece from emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen: http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment/

And take your pick from all of the short pieces listed here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/08/is-gores-missing-heat-really-hiding-in-the-deep-ocean/

And http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

"Just where the heat is and how much there is seems to depend on who is doing the modeling. The U.S. National Oceanographic Data Center ARGO data shows a slight rise in global ocean heat content, while the British Met Office, presumably using the same data shows a slight decline in global ocean heat content."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-2/#sthash.idQttama.dpuf

Dr. Lindzen had this to say about the IPCC report: "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/01/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-1/#sthash.oMO3oy6X.dpuf

So just as "believers" can ask "Why believe Heartland [financier for much of the NPCC], but not the IPCC," I can just as easily ask "Why should I believe you and not Richard Lindzen?"

"CCR-II cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide controls."

And from the same author's series:

"Human carbon dioxide emissions are 3% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and about 98% of all carbon dioxide emissions are reabsorbed through the carbon cycle.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

"Using data from the Department of Energy and the IPCC we can calculate the impact of our carbon dioxide emissions. The results of that calculation shows that if we stopped all U.S. emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.003 C per year. If every country totally stopped human emissions, we might forestall 0.01 C of warming."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/08/01/climate-change-in-perspective/#sthash.Dboz3dC5.dpuf

Again, I have asked, repeatedly, where's the evidence of human impact on global warming? "Consensus" is not evidence. I ask for evidence and instead I get statements about the consensus that global warming happening. These are two different issues.

"Although Earth’s atmosphere does have a “greenhouse effect” and carbon dioxide does have a limited hypothetical capacity to warm the atmosphere, there is no physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions actually produce any significant warming."

Or Roger Pielke, Sr: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/pielke-sr-on-that-hide-and-seek-ocean-heat/

Or Lennart Bengtsoon (good interview): "Yes, the scientific report does this but, at least in my view, not critically enough. It does not bring up the large difference between observational results and model simulations. I have full respect for the scientific work behind the IPCC reports but I do not appreciate the need for consensus. It is important, and I will say essential, that society and the political community is also made aware of areas where consensus does not exist. To aim for a simplistic course of action in an area that is as complex and as incompletely understood as the climate system does not make sense at all in my opinion."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html

Bengtsson: "I have always been a skeptic and I believe this is what most scientists really are."

What Michael Crichton said about "consensus": "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Will Happer on the irrelevancy of more CO2 now: "The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds."

Ivar Giaever, not a climate scientist per se, but a notable scientist and also a skeptic challenging "consensus": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

Even prominent IPCC scientists are skeptics, even within the IPCC there is not agreement: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

And for your research, it may be worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683

To be sure, it does not take "studies" and "experts" to "prove" that smog turns healthy breathable air into unhealthy unbreathable air.

But, again, the consensus among proponents of man-made global warming pretty much all agree that the cause is greenhouse gases. And the consensus is also that cattle accounts for the main source of greenhouse gases. I honestly don't see how anyone concerned with man-made global warming can ignore this and, therefore, not be vegetarian (i.e., be congruent in their behaviors and beliefs).

I recommend reading "Hot Talk, Cold Science", endorsed by respected physicist the late Frederick Seitz, William Harper professor of Physics at Princeton, Richard Lindzen, meteorologist at MIT, written by physicist Fred Singer.

If you want to know where Prof. Singer is coming from, read this (and skeptics are not "deniers"- that's just a slur).

But before you freak out, let me restate, it matters not; clean air is good either way; do things that contribute to clean air (like end the state -- > good luck with that!).

(Better to read and have these discussions with actual working climate scientists than to bother with Internet pundits either way.)

There is also "consensus" as to the three types of "deniers." If anyone calls me a "denier," I'd be curious as to which of the three types of "deniers" you think I belong to (as indicated in the Singer article linked above). And you can then give me your scientific explanations as to why my stance is not valid.

This is something worth keeping in mind (from Singer):

"I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced warmistas and probably even less with true deniers. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out."

The warmistas matter as much as the deniers. And the bottomline remains: what are you going to do about it anyway? As has been shown over and over, your "votes" don't count for much (or anything at all). So, what are you going to do about this (other than fume and get your panties in a twist on videosift)? The same is true with the "deniers." And the skeptics (i.e., true scientists).

Science also doesn't work by consensus. No real scientist will say otherwise. You either prove/falsify some hypothesis or you don't. You don't determine the truth in science by "consensus." Scientific consensus, as has been said, is itself unscientific.

There is no "consensus" on the acceleration speed of falling objects. There is no "consensus" on whether the Earth is orbiting the sun. There is no "consensus" on water being made up of H2O. These you can measure and find out for yourself. (In fact, Galileo had less than 5% "consensus" on whether the Earth orbits the sun at the time of his experiments. Facts matter. "Consensus?" Not so much.)

But,

“If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data. As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models. As the models have increasingly diverged from the data, the climate clique have nevertheless grown increasingly confident—from cocky in 2001 (66% certainty in IPCC’s Third Assessment Report) to downright arrogant in 2013 (95% certainty in the Fifth Assessment Report).”

Still, this does not in any way equate "denial" of man-made global warming or whatever other "climate change." That is simply an unfounded conflation made up by the propagandists which so many here take on as gospel.

And it still does not let anyone "off the hook" about actually doing something that matters if you care about it so much.

Let me know if anyone finds any "errors" in the science of the NGIPCC articles and studies that I posted above.

This is the paper that is being cited, and you'll note that if you read it, you'll see that the experts had no position as to whether "man-made global warming is occurring" or not. They don't know and so, as scientists, they don't make any claims one way or the other. Of the minority who thinks or claims that they "know," most said that it is occurring.

That is totally different from saying "97% of all climate experts agree" on whatever... But, y'know, reading may be too much work for most people. If you are truly concerned about "climate change," then reduce/eliminate your own carbon footprint. Become vegetarian, walk and take public transportation, reuse bags, bottles, and containers, etc.. If you are not concerned about it, then you might as well ignore the whole topic and let the meteorologists do what they do.

Yes, absolutely, the meteor in Russia was a major event. And people got hurt.
It's big news to those among the injured (superficial wounds that most of them were - but still important) and it's important to meteorologists & astronomers.

Interesting to the rest of us, yes. but not important to me in the sense that it doesn't affect me. It doesn't. Nor does it affect the majority of the world.

But the world economy affects everyone. The stuff that is going on now will not just affect us today and tomorrow but far into the future. These are events that can change the outlook of society.

So as I promote this one lonely video that was in danger of being overlooked Vs. the more than numerous (and still counting) videos surfacing this morning concerning the event in Russia. I am not being facetious, but I am being poignant.

That's awesome to see. I once saw three at once but they were kind of far away. I have two questions for a waterspout meteorologist: -does it suck up salt water (fish) into the rain cloud? -does it ground the cloud and reduce lightening?

So to be on the safe side they should cry wolf every time they get any sort of blip?
Does this mean if someone gets hit by lightning when it was only supposed to be a light rain, the Meteorologists better get a lawyer?

The only question I have would be, "Were they incompetent?" Because, if not, then you can't blame them - they can only read the data and make educated guesses based on the data. I don't think anyone has ever successfully predicted the size of an earthquake before it has happened.

This sounds more like a witch-hunt and scapegoat scenario.

"the woman recording this (Lindsay Phillips) is a meteorologist and storm chaser and this is not her first close encounter with a tornado. You'd think she could hold it together a little better."
Therefore she knows how dangerous they are. So she has every right to be scared, right? And in any case, I think she holds it together pretty well! I've have been crapping myself.

@Mazex

Well, where your claim about brainwashed people falls apart is that if Jesus was made up (which no reputed historian would claim), or His resurrection wasn't true, his disciples certainly wouldn't have martyred themselves for that lie. Being direct witnesses of the fact, you can't claim they were brainwashed. So yeah.

I posted the historical reliability of the bible because it shows its not just cooked up, as you tried to claim. It's highly intricate, and I dare say it would be actually be more miraculous for holding up so reliably if it wasnt true. 100 percent historical accuracy is pretty compelling, I think..it indicates that these are honest eye witness accounts we're dealing with.

Here are some interesting science facts that the bible fortold thousands of years before science knew anything about it..pretty good for made up isnt it?

The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.”

Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea

Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.

Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.

The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent – just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.

Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Origin of the different “races” explained (Genesis 11). As Noah’s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established “a weight for the wind.” In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.

Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with God’s Word.

A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, “unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells “give their lives” to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain

Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him – pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?

The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.

Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if God’s commands were followed.

Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God’s image.

Beware the vengeful wrath of the meteorologist.

I wish this video actually presented some alternate views instead of just floating a bunch of counter-claims.

This is like Zeitgeist except without all the insightful research and information.

Most of the things said in this video have been pretty well shot down already, but there's one point I'd like to make which has only been hinted at so far:

There's no such thing as a "Climate Change Scientist". This idea that, if climate change is disproven, all these scientists will be out of work is ridiculous. Climatologists and meteorologists will keep right on collecting and studying the same exact data regardless.

This is bullshit. the evidence not only is in, but it is growing. The deniers rely purely on distorted data, and basically none of them are climate scientists. If you look at the famous list of climate "skeptics" often referred to as scientists, it turns out that almost none of them are actually scientists in the related fields.

The argument that scientists conspire to create panic so theyll recieve funding is complete bullshit. Anyone who believes that, simply doesn't understand how science works. The evidence for global warming comes from a wide vareity of fields, and the people responsible for collecting it includes, but are not limited to meteorologists, geologists, arctic explorers, glacier experts, NASA and other space-organisations, marine biologists, oceanographers and people who do climate research. If this is a conspiracy, it is simply unprecedented in the history of everything, and involves mostly people with no interest in fueling the panic. Much of the imagery that shows the ice receding, for instance, come from NASA, now why would a company that burns off a hundred tons of fuel every time they send a rocket to space, want to lie so that people thought burning fuel was destroying the planet?

If you are a climate scientist, and you are interested in making a shitload of cash, Call Exxon on and lend your credibility to them for an infomercial, and you wont need to lift a finger the rest of your life. Much, much easier than trying to co-conspire with thousands of scientists.

thanks kp!

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
While there's no doubt that Kurzweil is extremely knowledgeable about some things, such as computer technology, he makes the same mistake that many highly intelligent people do: Thinking that being smart in one field of expertise makes you somehow smart in almost any other field that you're interested in. Futurists are about the worst who fall into this category.

Don't misunderstand me. There's nothing wrong with making predictions about tomorrow's technology. We all do it from time to time. However most of us know that our knowledge of technology and science is very limited at best, so our predictions shouldn't be taken as prophesies handed down from God. I don't see many astrophysicists making predictions about when a cure for the common cold will be found, not do I see many meteorologists predicting when a commercially viable fusion reactor will go into production. But that doesn't intimidate most futurists. Everything is up for grabs. Never let one's lack of knowledge stand in the way of making wild-ass speculations predictions.

Anyone who doesn't approach the prophesies of futurists with serious skepticism probably should find another hobby that tends to discourage critical thinking.

While there's no doubt that Kurzweil is extremely knowledgeable about some things, such as computer technology, he makes the same mistake that many highly intelligent people do: Thinking that being smart in one field of expertise makes you somehow smart in almost any other field that you're interested in. Futurists are about the worst who fall into this category.

Don't misunderstand me. There's nothing wrong with making predictions about tomorrow's technology. We all do it from time to time. However most of us know that our knowledge of technology and science is very limited at best, so our predictions shouldn't be taken as prophesies handed down from God. I don't see many astrophysicists making predictions about when a cure for the common cold will be found, nor do I see many meteorologists predicting when a commercially viable fusion reactor will go into production. But that doesn't intimidate most futurists. Everything is up for grabs. Never let one's lack of knowledge stand in the way of making wild-ass speculations predictions.

Anyone who doesn't approach the prophesies of futurists with serious skepticism probably should find another hobby that tends to discourage critical thinking.

>> ^visionep:

If I didn't know better I would call this fake.
Everyone knows that Finland is a land of ice and snow. They can't have beaches with people relaxing in shorts and no shirts.
Helsinki is at a similar parallel to Juneau Alaska.


Ice and snow? Are you a geographer or a meteorologist? That's quite an ignorant assumption. I haven't been there, but I live in Canada and people often assume that it never gets warm enough to take off my parka. The southern tip of Finland is still north from my parallel, but they have water slide parks and long summer days. Look up vesiliukumäki!

A double agent sets up an elaborate sting operation on a terrorist that ends up being another double agent who is in the process of carrying out his own elaborate sting operation? Text book example of irony.

Just like a finding black fly in your glass of chardonnay at a party celebrating the successful fumigation of your vineyard. Or like rain on the wedding day of two meteorologists. Or like meeting the man of your dreams and then meeting his beautiful wife, who turns out to be the relationship advice columnist that encouraged you to get out of the house and meet the man of your dreams. Or like a no smoking sign on a cigarette break in the executive lounge of Philip Morris.