Sorry I don't take a writer's word for anything technical! Go back and report on Tiger's Wood!

"the vast body of evidence showing man-made global warming because of greenhouse gas emissions."

Believe it or die

It's like a reporter writing up the latest analysis of Medical Study. Their understanding of a subject they know NOTHING about is not worth the paper it's printed on...

Global Warming is all hot air

"Their understanding of a subject they know NOTHING about is not worth the paper it's printed on..."

Much like your comments.

This is obvious. The only reason "climategate" ever became big news in the first place is because the deniers have been so desperate to find something, anything, on which to base their opposition to the indisputable facts. It is an insult to the collective intelligence of society that this ever mushroomed into a big story in the first place. Personally, I blame the corporate rightwing lie machine.

One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.

The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law.

Even though we lied and destroyed data you must believe our every word....
.

Personally, I blame the corporate rightwing lie machine.

Bumper sticker insults aside, this climategate has not refuted global warming, I would never claim it has, but it does show a credibility gap in a select few scientists. Why would these guys be afraid to tell the whole truth?

2008ATM vomited:
"Even though we lied and destroyed data..."

well, nothing like an outright lie to try and convince those to stupid to investigate for themselves.

It's too bad we can't split the planet into those who believe the scientists, and those who believe what they want to believe. If the latter could be peacefully removed from the gene pool, humanity might have a chance. As it is, they will kill us all.

Yeah the planet of nonbelievers would be a lot more fun though, Bob. I DONT HAVE TIME FOR A CLOTH BAG WHEN I BUY GROCERIES! And, I use the plastic bags to pick up dog poop.

"but the messages don't support claims that global warming science was faked, according to an exhaustive review by Associated Press."

That's not true, Andrea. We are dumb, and we need to be protected from big numbers. These scientists are doing us a HUGE favor.

Filter on, scientists.

"Why would these guys be afraid to tell the whole truth?'

Because their collected data was not backing up their assertions?
.

Was the AP piece peer-reviewed?

It's settled science, dammit!

That this ever became mostly a partisan issue in the first place should be clue that for rightwingers this has always been about money, not scientific truth.

Yeah the planet of nonbelievers would be a lot more fun though, Bob.

It depends on what you call fun. I would imagine you would fel at home at one of these parties.

That this ever became mostly a partisan issue in the first place should be clue that for rightwingers this has always been about money, not scientific truth.

People have been arguing over the weather for centuries. It wouldn't be a partisan issue if it did not involve ineffective taxes and regulations.

Was the AP piece peer-reviewed?

It's probably describing peer-reviewed research. Science reporting in the MSM is atrocious, though, so there's no way to tell.

It's settled science, dammit!

The warming issue is rather settled. The issue of its cause is not. Those are two very different things, and those with ulterior political motives need to be kept as far away from both of them as possible. That includes frothing-at-the-mouth righties and Gore-worshipping lefties.

Otherwise, all you get is the human equivalent of a bunch of monkeys flinging feces at eachother and calling it a "scientific debate". Nevermind most people "debating" haven't the slightest clue. Science is a very effective, self correcting process if people don't fuck with it.

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2009-12-12 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag: doesn't pay attention

"In 1896, Svante August Arrhenius (1859-1927) published a landmark paper that examined the effect of different levels of atmospheric CO2 (carbonic acid) concentration on the temperature of the planet. His energy budget model, the first of its kind, took into account solar and terrestrial radiation, including the fourth-power relationship between temperature and radiation, and contained estimates of the absorption of terrestrial radiation by water vapor and carbon dioxide based upon the work of John Tyndall, Samuel P. Langley, Knut nsgstrm, and others.

Arrhenius used his model to calculate the change of temperature that would follow if the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was two-thirds, double, or even triple its present value. He reported that a doubling of CO2 would raise global temperatures by about 3 to 3.5 C while a reduction of CO2 by one-third would lower temperatures by roughly the same amount. These values happen to be within the range of current estimates even though Arrhenius ignored the possible effects of changes of horizontal advection and cloud cover and worked with very limited spectroscopic data. For example, the infrared atmospheric window between 8 and 12 microns and the strong carbon dioxide and water vapor absorption bands beyond 12 microns were unknown at the time.

His calculations, made for every tenth parallel of latitude and for every season, showed that ice age conditions could be sustained between 40 and 50 North latitude if the carbon dioxide in the air should sink to about half of its present value. On the other hand, the temperature of the Arctic regions would rise dramatically if the CO2 concentration was double or triple its present value. In general, he wrote, "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression."

This was in essence a geological model, and the onset of ice ages and interglacials were his primary concern. Ultimately, crustal processess, not the biosphere, controlled CO2 levels and he considered volcanoes, not coal burning, to be the "chief source of carbonic acid for the atmosphere." Over the course of a millennium, however, humans could have a major influence, since he estimated that burning the world's annual production of coal, approximately 500 million tons, produced about one-thousandth of the total atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. "

I could write an email saying that I made up data to prove there is such a thing as gravity. Would that prove there is no gravity???
Also, it is, I'm sure, just a coincidence that funding for the people who requested the emails with FOI received funding from the American Petroleum Institute.

Danni. Here we go. Global warming is man made and is deal just like gravity.

Bla bla bla

Bla bla bla

#23 | Posted by bph320 at 2009-12-12 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's your most intelligent response ever. The pills must be working. I'll bet that soon you'll be tying your shoes on your own. Keep up the good work. People are hoping for the best for you.

"Bla bla bla"

At this point in time I have ceased caring what nit wits like you think. You want to pretend that the majority of scientists is wrong fine, be my guest. But just like gravity the problem will still exist.

Global warming is the same old recycled socialist/fascist bullshit that universal health care is, a way to fuck up the economy so bad the plebes will be desperate for someone to fix it for them. It's all about the power grab!!!!

"It's all about the power grab!!!!"

Gravity is part of the same evil plot. Newton was a Commie!!!

gravity the problem will still exist.

#25 | Posted by danni

But just like gravity the problem will still exist.

Gravity is a problem? Oh my, how do we stop it from killing polar bears falling out of the sky?

Sounds like we need a Global Gravity Summit.

"Oh my, how do we stop it from killing polar bears falling out of the sky?"

At least the chances of them landing on solid ice are diminishing rapidly, it's a much softer landing in open water.

So........ if it is true, why do they have to COOK the BOOKS?

'"Why would these guys be afraid to tell the whole truth?'

Because their collected data was not backing up their assertions?'

#14 | Posted by 2008ATL

No. Its because we are at a turning point. Action is needed now. The situation is desperate and there is no room for doubt.

Man made global warming is real and some scientists do harbor a seed of doubt. That is not to be unexpected. It does not take a scientist to draw the same conclusions from the data.

The article says the data backs up the conclusions if you would bother to read it before commenting, which I know you will not.

Saw a great comic by DUFFY this week.

Two Polar Bears were sitting on a picnic blanket at Coney Island.

The one Polar Bear said to the other:

'He asked me if I had any PROOF of global warming.

And That's when I ate him!'

Here's the raw data, snappy, do the analysis yourself.

"This section allows you to select, from the databank, an image from the original record book containing the raw meteorological data for any given month between December 1794 and June 2000 but excluding April 1795 to June 1795 and June 1825 to December 1832.

Data from July 2000 until November 2009 is available in digital format rather than as a scanned image.

The data is not corrected for instrumental sensitivity, exposure of the instruments or the time of observation. It is contained in monthly tables of observed data with some general comments on the weather by the observer."

What Algor and his alarmist puppets aren't saying is that the temperature variations involved in "Climate Change", "Global Warming", and in the '70s, the "New Ice Age" really are just part of the Earths evolution. Scientists today are incapable of saying with certainty that humans are causing any of the changes that we are seeing. More importantly, the scientists can't say that anything we as humans can do will affect said change regardless of its cause.

This is a money/power grab of the highest order using the guilty conscience so prevalent in the "Green" movement and the wealthier countries along with sketchy science to prod whole societies into increasing taxes and shifting power. Disgusting.

The title of Algors next book will be:

"The sky is falling"
How I line my pockets using fear and B.S. science

All proceeds will be used to fuel my private jet.

"What Algor and his alarmist puppets aren't saying"

By the use of the term "Algor" you notify everyone that you are now going to repeat a rant by Rush Limbaugh. No thinking, no real consideration of facts, just mindless repitition of right wing liars doesn't impress me much.

yo Zat . . . was-up?

the database ya linked to contains data from ONE (1) [UNO] {ОДин} - observatory in Ireland - -
where is the WORLD data??

perhaps I can help . . . .

The Sunday Times.UK
November 29, 2009

CLIMATE CHANGE DATA DUMPED
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted THROWING AWAY MUCH OF THE RAW TEMPERATURE DATA on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected . . .

The revised figures were kept, but the originals stored on paper and magnetic tape were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data."

Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

"The CRU is basically saying, Trust us'.

Phil Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s

OOOPS :(

Also, it is, I'm sure, just a coincidence that funding for the people who requested the emails with FOI received funding from the American Petroleum Institute.

#22 | Posted by danni
--------------------------
Does it really matter who they worked for? Just because the government paid for the research wi9th tax money it is open for FOIA requests and these scumbags have a legal obligation to provide it to them.

Lonnie

Global Warming Is Not Faked. Well I guess that settles it.

Another FP thread to the AGW's side. Need any investigation to the credibility? No. Why? Because AP says so. Case closed.

Need any investigation to the credibility? No. Why?

Because Alex Jones said so, right LR?

"Does it really matter who they worked for?"

It just indicates that there is an ongoing attempt by big oil to try and use isolated, irrelevant events to undercut the entire theory of global climate change. It makes the people who try to say that these emails disprove all the work done by thousands of scientists around the world look like what they are, paid shills for big oil and who are not even interested in the truth.

You want to pretend that the majority of scientists is wrong fine, be my guest. But just like gravity the problem will still exist.

#25 | Posted by danni
----------------------------
danni,

How do you figure the majority?

This article says 43% to 43% which leaves 14% undecided.

You neglect to mention that this is undecided on the issue of whether to take "urgent action" on climate change. Not whether climate change is actually occurring.

"Does it really matter who they worked for?"

It just indicates that there is an ongoing attempt by big oil to try and use isolated, irrelevant events to undercut the entire theory of global climate change. It makes the people who try to say that these emails disprove all the work done by thousands of scientists around the world look like what they are, paid shills for big oil and who are not even interested in the truth.

#41 | Posted by danni
-----------------------
Really? I say it really doesn't matter those scientists keep your side's scientist honest which is something that your side can't afford...honesty. That's why they run this scam just like the mafia. You should be asking yourself if the global warming alarmists are right and have science on their side then why do they have a problem showing their work.

Lonnie

One may argue, all that matters is it comes from a credible source, like AP. Let the reader decide.

Well, let's take a closer look.
Nobody has to remind us of a few facts:

1. The MSM is obviously going to side with AGW no matter what happens. Al Gore can come out and say that CO2 is not the primary cause of AGW. They'll still implement a carbon credit system.

Oh, wait a minute. That's exactly what happened. Silly me!

2. (See Link) It has been shown factual that the govt funded AGW researchers, who by the way already had their conclusion politically determined beforehand, shut out any scientists during the review process. Therefore, what other conclusion could there possibly have been? So, any argumentation that there was a vigorous peer review is completely outside of the truth.

This article says 43% to 43% which leaves 14% undecided.

You neglect to mention that this is undecided on the issue of whether to take "urgent action" on climate change. Not whether climate change is actually occurring.

#43 | Posted by ZombieHunter
-------------------
That's true it is on whether to take action. So if it's tied then neither side has a majority. Kinda doesn't make a case for Crap and tax does it?

I was trying to find out how many scientists agree with global warming. It's easy to find a count of the deniers, they have 31,000.

Lonnie

#40 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-12-12 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Gosh I forgot to add the Strangelove Worshipping Queen of eugenics says so too!

" I was trying to find out how many scientists agree with global warming. "

97% of climatologists.

So true Danni. Just try and get big oil to disclose their data sources and results of their studies on the effects of oil born pollution to the university researchers. It ain't gonna happen. These righties keep insisting AGW is all about the money, but ironically it's big money that trying to bury the truth, not scientists working for grant money. The lies, corrupted data and manipulated results are all from corporate interests and their high paid lawyers tell their highly paid researchers what to say. This is exactly what happened with Tobbacco research and asbestos research. It took Americans 50 years to see through that bullshit. Some republicans still don't believe it. The same morons who don't believe in evolution is spite of the mountains of evidence. These people with high school educations are the real suckers. The make good laborers, but science will never be their forte.

#41 danni
It just indicates that there is an ongoing attempt by big oil to try and use isolated, irrelevant events to undercut the entire theory of global climate change.

Tell me you don't honestly believe that. Are you that naive? Who wins from the massive credit trading racketeering fraud (besides Al Gore of course)?

Follow the money. You'll return with a more informed opinion which side Big Oil falls.

"You should be asking yourself if the global warming alarmists are right and have science on their side then why do they have a problem showing their work."

But then I would have to pretend, like you do, that the people involved in this are typical of all of the thousands of scientists around the world and I see no evidence of that. This is a mountain made out of a mole hill by people who have a financial interest in disputing what the vast majority of scientists are telling us. Let only scientists who take no funds from big oil, have no connection to it come forward and make a case then I might listen but I haven't seen that happen yet. There are those who will claim to take no funds from big oil or coal but usually when someone digs around long enough they find the link.
They don't seem to be interested in science as much as propaganda.

That's true it is on whether to take action. So if it's tied then neither side has a majority. Kinda doesn't make a case for Crap and tax does it?

Yep. I'm not too much of a fan of any of the anti-global warming legislation being proposed. That doesn't make it an issue that should be ignored or never addressed.

The problem is that politicians like Gore and bumbling idiots like LR dominate "discussions" on the issue. You can't get anywhere when the extent of 'debate' is a few fools flinging feces at each other.

Does Al Gore, the name and face of the AGW scam, have ties to big oil?

#52 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-12-12 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Feels Left Out in the Cold

Feels Left Out in the Cold

On this issue, I certainly am.

Like I said, there are two camps of ideologically-driven fools dominating the discussion on the issue. People with an interest in preserving the integrity of the scientific process don't say anything inflammatory enough to get time on TV, so the issue remains polarized and nothing productive will be accomplished.

#49 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-12-12 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag: Refuses to Face the Music

#53 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-12-12 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

" I was trying to find out how many scientists agree with global warming. "
97% of climatologists.

Science is not a democracy.

#55 z
Then, with all due respect, quit denegrating either side and get educated. The AGW skeptics do provide very worth counter-arguments.

" I was trying to find out how many scientists agree with global warming. "

97% of climatologists.
scienceblogs.com
www.scientificblogging.com
#48 | Posted by Zatoichi

Zat, ya either know that and are frightened - - -

or ya are bogus

The libs at the AP know as much about science as the people who think the world is 6000 years old. Man-made global warming is a hoax no matter how much the pseudo-science fakers scream and shout.

97% of climatologists

Right, now those are authoritative sources, especially when you consider that those climatologists built their careers on the climate change bandwagon.

Try the OSIM petition instead:

There ARE experts with scientific credentials who dispute the IPPC.

On June 2, as Congress debated global warming legislation that would raise energy costs to consumers by hundreds of billions of dollars, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released an 880-page book challenging the scientific basis of concerns that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects.

In "Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)," coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals.

The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC's self-imposed deadline of May 2006.

CLIMATE CHANGE DATA DUMPED

#37 | Posted by markh at 2009-12-12 04:21 PM

That particular data was from urban temperature stations in which there were no rural stations nearby. Urban centres are unnaturally warmer than rural, so they would of skewed the data with unnaturally higher readings. NASA and NOAA still have that data, but they also don't use it in their findings.

They did the right thing. But like the e-mails, you people misunderstand and jump all over it anyway.

There ARE experts with scientific credentials who dispute the IPPC.

#62 | Posted by Ray at 2009-12-12 05:39 PM

They may have scientific credentials, but they don't seem to understand the scientific fact that the more CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the higher the temperatures. This has been known to have happened over hundreds of thousands of years. Earth's warmer temperatures are in direct correlation to our greenhouse gas output.

#63 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-12-12 05:54 PM

Sigh. No matter how much we explain it to you people, you still refuse to understand. Read the AP article.

This has been known to have happened over hundreds of thousands of years. Earth's warmer temperatures are in direct correlation to our greenhouse gas output.

Yes, no doubt, except for a few ice-ages during the period, which seem to have crept in to spoil the correlation.

quit denegrating either side and get educated

I am far more educated on this subject than you... that much is painfully obvious. It is not exactly surprising since the bulk of your "education" seems to have come from Sunday school teachers and Alex Jones. You would benefit from taking a bit of your own advice.

I have not seen information that conclusively demonstrates humans have anything to do with the warming trend. The warming trend is there, though. No amount of ignorant blather will change that. If you want to deny a massive body of evidence gathered from multiple independent research groups, feel free. No one who has "got educated" will have any words for you beyond a bit of well-deserved ridicule.

#67 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2009-12-12 06:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sigh. No matter how much we explain it to you people, you still refuse to understand. Read the AP article.

From AP:

One e-mail that skeptics have been citing often since the messages were posted online is from Jones. He says: "I've just completed Mike's (Mann) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined.

The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data which was misleading, Mann explained.

Frankel conveniently places words in the complaintant's mouth. Why didn't they interview Jones and see if that is a correct assertion? What if Frankel is mistaken, missed an important detail or is simply not being honest?

Yet having explained away all the inconveniences, Frankel provides a glib dismissive assertion that he saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

Can we get real here?

CONSPIRACY, RARRRRRRRRGH!

#70 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-12-12 06:39 PM | Reply | Flag: flapping the lips, but only venom is spewing out.

"AGW was birthed out of a 1975 conference"

Just a few decades off there Edison.

CONSPIRACY, RARRRRRRRRGH!

Where did the AGW nuts go? Ring & Danni left after a few of the common-sensers blew away their statements.

Their last posts were made at #49, #51. All that is left on the AGW side is Derek? Hold down the fort, buddy!

Venomous Z doesn't count by just trolling, throwing in a spurrious insult now and then.

#74 Zat
Today's AGW movement. No point parsing words to avoid the point.

Venomous Z doesn't count

Too much for you to handle? If you can't take the heat...

Global Warming not faked?? Yeah right and I am the smartest Human ever lived.(Rolls Eyes)

Larry

"the point"

The top of your little bitty head.

And Larry, you aren't even stupid.

Global Warming is a farce

All of the available data the "scientists" are using is comparing current temperatures to those from 1860 to 2009.

Based on that information I have some questions/concerns.

1) How do you compare, apples to apples, temperature changes from a time period so long ago UNLESS you use the exact same temperature gauge and location on the planet?
2) How do they, the "scientists", account for sunspot activity in the final analysis?
3) How do the "scientists" account for the warming trend that occurred to warm up the planet after the last Ice Age?
4) Or after the last Little Ice Age?
5) How do you measure the rise in sea levels over the course of 100 years? Last time I was at the beach, the waves crashed onto the beach every 30 seconds. How the hell do you measure that?
6) At one point in time the entire east coast of America was a shallow ocean. What caused that to change?

Scientists are fallible and are unable to predict the weather 14 days out much less 100-500 years from now. The so called warming trend is within normal climatic variations, and the measured increase is based on poor measurements. Who is to say the planet shouldn't be at a higher overall temperature? Greenland use to be green and was able to grow crops, hence the name.

Bottom line, man can't predict nor control the weather. Not even Algore. The world has bigger fish to fry than global warming. How about world corruption? Obviously man can not rule himself.

That's because we haven't seen the vast body of evidence showing that global warming, if it exists, is not due to greenhouse gas emissions...it's been suppressed.

Based on that information I have some questions/concerns.

Buzz, all you're doing is questioning the role of man in the warming trend - not the warming trend itself. That's quite reasonable and what any self-respecting scientist should do. Skepticism is the name of the game.

Don't let your skepticism turn into denial and willful ignorance, though. Those things seem to be viewed as virtues by too many people on this site and elsewhere in America.

That's because we haven't seen the vast body of evidence showing that global warming, if it exists, is not due to greenhouse gas emissions...it's been suppressed.

There's a difference between actively suppressing evidence and the media not finding it worthwhile to discuss certain concepts.

The people who are talking on TV/radio or writing articles in the papers want an audience. An audience needs to be drawn in by controversy or the prospect of catastrophe, not technical discussions and the dry, dense language that scientists use to bicker with each other on paper. You'll notice that rightwing demagogues have been frothing at the mouth over the so-called "climategate" emails but for the last two decades they have not bothered to participate in any semblance of a scientific discussion. They don't give a shit about the facts... they only want to promote their ideology - to hell with the facts.

Most people want smoking guns and sweeping conclusions but you're not going to get them on this issue. Not, at least, without a lot more study. You're not going to get that without a lot more silence on the part of the politicians.

I tend to agree #81 BEACHBUZZ at this point but it may be in our best interest to continue to cut back on releasing greenhouse gases to the environment. I would assume it would be healthier as well. Do we need to continue the research? You bet. Do we need to hold the inhabitants of this planet hostage over Global Warming? I think not...at least not yet. The one plus I can see right away is the progress made in developing alternative fuels and the possibility of using less petroleum products in the manufacturing processes. I do most my driving in the city and my new hybrid is getting 47mpg. That's a lot less money in the tank and more bread on the table. Ok not so much bread on the table as gin in the belly.

24 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-12-12 03:13 PM

LOL

The earth's climate has changed Oh, I don't know exactly. Lets just say a whole bunch of times. This is the only time it is caused by us evil humans? I'll take those odds any day. The math doesn't add up. It's like me going to my friend Joe and saying "Hey Joe look. I got this here switch and I can turn the sun off and on when ever I want".

Some people have no choice. They are compelled to "SAVE THE PLANET"! Well, I got news for ya. You ain't a power full enough force. But if it makes you FEEL good about yourself go right ahead. Just as long as it doesn't hurt me and mine.

And by the way, I'd like to know from the people who believe this shit.... How did you get to be so fucken dumb? Nobody is even born that dumb. You had to have gone to STUPID school or sumpin?

" I'll take those odds any day. The math doesn't add up."

Didn't do well in fourth grade did ya?

Danni -

Algor is used because I feel that he is a dolt, not because Limbaugh or anyone else told me to call him that.

You are closed minded in the extreme if you ignore the obvious;

Climate Change, Global Warming, Algors personal cash machine, whatever you wish to call it, is far from settled.

Oh yeah, I've read enough of your posts to know that you ARE a closed minded liberal troll...

If the government wants to use climate change software models to determine our ecnomic future, all models should be in the OpenSource
#12 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Feel free to code a model and post on Sourceforge..

Easy for people to demand crap that can't do it themselves.

"Feel free to code a model and post on Sourceforge.."

I suspect Andrea could do that quite easily. Just a hunch, though.

"Andrea could do that quite easily."

I used to do that with my Heathkit in 1962.

Too bad you stupid fools chose the cognitive dissonance way; But that's how you are programmed.

"I used to do that with my Heathkit in 1962."

Groovy, old timer. I suspect that my friend Andrea would stuff you ten times over in any programming contest. But that's just a hunch on my part.

"But that's just a hunch on my part."

And you'd lose.

A dear friend.

I suspect that my friend Andrea would stuff you ten times over in any programming contest.

Oooh... I like a woman who can code.

"Oooh... I like a woman who can code."

She's a hottie, no doubt. lol

She's a hottie, no doubt. lol

Hahaha hot nerdy chicks are hard to come by but they are the best.

"Hahaha hot nerdy chicks are hard to come by but they are the best."

Especially if they wear glasses, i.e., the sexy librarian look.

#80 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-12-12 07:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"the point"
The top of your little bitty head.
And Larry, you aren't even stupid.

#59 | Posted by markh at 2009-12-12 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag

ummm. . .
by definition the "scientific method" gives absolutely NO value to consensus

Zat, ya either know that and are frightened - - -

or ya are bogus

#61 | Posted by MontyPython at 2009-12-12 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:
97% of climatologists

Right, now those are authoritative sources, especially when you consider that those climatologists built their careers on the climate change bandwagon.

Try the OSIM petition instead:

www.petitionproject.org

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

31,486 and counting Zatoichi.

#48 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-12-12 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:
" I was trying to find out how many scientists agree with global warming. "
97% of climatologists.
scienceblogs.com
www.scientificblogging.com

#88 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-12-12 09:11 PM | Reply | Flag

" I'll take those odds any day. The math doesn't add up."
Didn't do well in fourth grade did ya?
www.guardian.co.uk
Bye!

Wazza matter, Zat. Somebody actually implied you were the DR king with your knowledge of the PR's of AGW. Many postings have gouged serious holes in the headline. But Zat's relegated elementary school replies to posters such as "the point on the top of your head", "didn't go well in 4th grade".

Or "how many people believe in gw? let's see 97%. SCIENCE IS POPULISM, you're a genius Zat.

Let's see a legitimate answer instead of your deflective middle-schoolish answer "wrong year, Edison". Some people have asked you specifically or replied to your simplistic quibs. Have you ever answered anybody's AGW question beyond a middle school response?

Challenging the school buddy right now, What do you got? Ring also needs to reply back. Your #49 was directly contracted by #53 both in response to Danni #41.

#53 (response to #41).
#63 (other than the AP's candy-coated dismission)
#68 (something other than wrong year edison OR the point is on the top of your head)
#61 (31,xxx and counting)

Especially if they wear glasses, i.e., the sexy librarian look.

Posted by nullifidian at 2009-12-12 10:01 PM | Reply

Provided that they aren't those Gawd awful half glasses that You see all of those yuppy wannabes wearing. I mean what up with half glasses anyways. Utterly stupidity if You ask Me.

Larry

Zatoichi ~ your friend WOODROW W. BLEDSOE was/is an amazing fellow! Thanks for posting it. yes, I read the whole bio:>)

Especially if they wear glasses, i.e., the sexy librarian look.

I dated a girl who looked like that and it was an absolute disaster. The sex was great, but she was insane. As in borderline personality disorder insane. I guess that made it crazy sex. In the 20/20 vision of hindsight, still not worth it.

Buzz, all you're doing is questioning the role of man in the warming trend - not the warming trend itself

Not really, I believe I stated my points well. The entire global warming debate should be about the numbers. And whether or not the planet is actually warming based upon a blip in history or because it is actually warming. I still don't know how the hell you can measure the ACTUAL temperature of the earth, as a whole, using a fucking thermometer!!

Regardless, the debate always winds down the same old win or lose road of who the fuck you voted for. Sad, actually.

------Gravity is part of the same evil plot. Newton was a Commie!!!

#27 | Posted by danni at 2009-12-12 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:------------

What's the matter?, gravity not been very kind to you lately danni?

Global Warming not faked?? Yeah right and I am the smartest Human ever lived.(Rolls Eyes)

Larry

#79 | Posted by LarryMohr
----------------------
It's about as real as pro-wrestling. The only thing missing is scientists taking their own bumps.

Lonnie

It occurs to me that whether man is to blame or not...it is still natural. Humans are not somehow "outside" of nature. We are part of the whole and everything we do is part of the whole. Even if we are personally to blame and don't change our ways, which leads to our extinction...it was still natural. Nature could give a shit about you or me or Algor or Rush.

"In my opinion, the existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon"
-------Dr. Manhattan-------

P.S.
Guy Fiendly...
I'm beginning to think you watch too much TV ( 8'p

Sweet f'ing song...
Makes me want to grab some glo-sticks and some X and...never mind.

Ahhh. yes...my little leftist-socialist friends all sound like Dan Rather with the forged papers. They are basically saying, "OK, the data is forged...BUT IT'S STILL TRUE!"

"Soros climate change activity benefits his hedge fund investments"

"George Soros has funded a wide variety of efforts to propagate the view that Climate Change poses perils to the planet and that this mandates measures that include so called clean fuels.

His efforts include his sponsorship of think tanks, for example, The Center for American Progress (CAP) - easily the nation's most powerful think-tank - that serves as Barack Obama's "Brain". The CAP has served as an employment agency to fill important government positions, including those that push the climate change story (Van Jones, for example). Of course, Soros is the sugar daddy of the Democratic Party whose members also promote "clean energy", "cap and trade", the end of King Coal, and the evisceration of our nuclear power industry. Soros was an early backer of Barack Obama's and employed his phalanx of 527 groups, of which he is the largest single funder, to work to get him elected."

Oh..yes the UNBIASED AP!?

From 2008:

Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man's activites are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased."

They say the report, which was published on Monday, contained sweeping scientific errors and was a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue.

"If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it," said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue.

In the article, Obama Left with Little Time to Curb Global Warming, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein wrote that global warming is "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid," and that "global warming is accelerating."

Deming, in an interview, took issue with Borenstein's characterization of a problem he says doesn't exist.

"He says global warming is accelerating. Not only is it continuing, it's accelerating, and whether it's continuing that was completely beyond the evidence," said Deming.

"The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980."

Deming said the article is further evidence of the media's decision to talk about global warming as fact, despite what he says is a lack of evidence.

And the Seth Borenstein mentioned the quote above is the SAME GUY who "reviewed" these mails and came to the conclusion.

I don't think his personal beliefs were an issue in the evaluation ...do you?

Yeah Right

Soros Has a $100 Billion Plan for Green Initiatives

It's a drop in the bucket compared to what is really needed, but unlike loud mouths like KBM, at least Soros is willing to invest a billion of his own money.

Replanting forests that capitalists exploited and weaning third world countries off oil dependency is key to future security for the US too. By all rights that responsibility should be put on those who destroyed the forests, but that's not the way capitalism works. Sustainable practices is a dirty word to right wing fanatics.

#67 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2009-12-12 06:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sigh. No matter how much we explain it to you people, you still refuse to understand. Read the AP article.

Derek, you perform the same "trick" as the author, anecdotal blanket dismissal of the facts. I have read it as have most of the common-sensers who have posted very solid counter-arguments.

Has anyone thumbed thru this whole thread and noticed that the few pro-AGW replies are either smart-aleck quips, wholly inadequate to the question raised or in most cases have not even replied at all? This is their brainless 'Not Faked' thread where the author conveniently acknowledges the faking but glibly dismisses each one. A few that are addressed are explained away as "what they really meant was...".

Attempting to neutralize the counter-arguments, the common-sensers are subjected to a carefully chosen "sampling" of their bullets removed from their gun by the author, so to speak. Even still, the common-senser's counter-arguments have overwhelmed the pro-AGW crowd. What they choose to do is ignore the arguments, under an assumption that they are either not valid or, as Derek feebly attempts, that the author has already discredited. Once the thread is nearly exhausted, the brainless like moder8 make their standard posts like "none of the right-wingers have been able to deny the truth". So transparent.

If you choose not to OR simply cannot counter your bullet-riddled headline, then YOU are losers.

LOL!

Gee, foshaffer, is that the same David Deming that is an associate editor of Petroleum Geoscience and Ground Water? The same David Deming that is a member of two conservative think tanks closely related to the Heritage Foundation and funded in part by big oil (Exxonmobile)?

Of course that wouldn't make him predjudiced in the matter. Just ask any neo-con.

The article says the data backs up the conclusions if you would bother to read it before commenting, which I know you will not.

#32 | Posted by Monstman

Is that the 'true' data or the 'trick' data or the data they accidently on purpose 'lost'.

Does this whole "man-made" global warming hoopla remind anyone else of the dreaded "Y2K" scare?
This warming crap started way before the year 2000, with the ominus warning that the oceans would rise 10 feet by the year 2050. So, shouldn't the oceans be about 2 feet higher than they were in 2000? Or is it going to wait until Dec. 31 2049 and then BOOM !! hit us with the 10 foot rise all at once?

the whole thing is a bunch of crap to help out the likes of Gore and his panty lickers. 2008 31,000 scientists and 9,021 phd's signed a petition by the Oregon institute of Science and Medicine rejecting claims of human caused global warming, but hey your science is settled. KMA

Not the old forged 'petition' again.

ROFL!!

"started way before the year 2000"

No shit.

1824
Joseph Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.

1859
Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.

1896
Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.

Science: Warmer World
Monday, Jan. 02, 1939

A shadowy scientific elite codenamed Jason warned the US about global warming 30 years ago but was sidelined for political convenience.

Does this whole "man-made" global warming hoopla remind anyone else of the dreaded "Y2K" scare?

Thanks for bringing that up. I didn't think the pubbies were that smart.

The Y2K scare was averted by proper preparation and a some educated liberal programmers. It sure wasn't any feather in the conservatives cap.

Rex, you're doing an interesting job of reinventing yourself.

Especially if they wear glasses, i.e., the sexy librarian look.
I dated a girl who looked like that and it was an absolute disaster. The sex was great, but she was insane. As in borderline personality disorder insane. I guess that made it crazy sex. In the 20/20 vision of hindsight, still not worth it.

#102 | POSTED BY ZOMBIEHUNTER

funny as hell.. and true..

the whole thing is a bunch of crap to help out the likes of Gore and his panty lickers. 2008 31,000 scientists and 9,021 phd's signed a petition by the Oregon institute of Science and Medicine rejecting claims of human caused global warming, but hey your science is settled. KMA

#117 | POSTED BY GENSHERMAN

ad hominem attacks and lies..amazing..

BTW General Sherman was a cunt.

Ring - So if you think Demming is biased - and therefore cannot be trusted - what is the difference between him and Seth the writer? Or these scientists?

If you think that personal bias mitigates the science - how can we trust the "science" proposed by the biased scientist that executed the coverup OR the AP writer that has already been called out for his views?

And why does GORE and the rest (who stand to make millions or at least maintain their current levels of funding) fight so hard (while completely mistating basic facts like:

The earths core temperature

"Global Warming? Snow Falls Down Under During Australian Summer"

The Y2K scare was averted by proper preparation and a some educated liberal programmers. It sure wasn't any feather in the conservatives cap.

#122 | Posted by ringmaster

It was a scam--

Russia did little to nothing 'to prepare' and the world did not end.

I made a shitload of money during Y2K. Went around checking electronics to make sure they could read 2000 as a date. what a scam. If they couldn't I let them know and they usually just replaced it.

The Y2K scare was averted by proper preparation and a some educated liberal programmers. It sure wasn't any feather in the conservatives cap.

This is the first time I saw y2k politicized.

#113 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-12-13 01:33 PM

What else could I say? It has been explained quite well that the e-mails are not evidence of fraud, but you people just won't listen to common sense. Even if they were evidence of fraud, there is no way that a few e-mails can discount the decades of research by thousands of scientists. The greenhouse effect was first theorized in the late 19th century.

"Trick" does not mean that they were trying to trick anyone. Behold:

The Whitney Trick

M. Lackenby

Cambridge University, Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, 16 Mill Lane, Cambridge CB2 1SB, UK

Received 8 November 1994.
Available online 16 February 1999.

Abstract

The Whitney Trick is a procedure by which submanifolds of a given manifold can, under certain conditions, be isotoped off each other by using an embedded 2-disc. It works well when the ambient manifold is of dimension five or greater. Here, a particularly simple example of its breakdown in dimension four is exhibited.

"Global Warming? Snow Falls Down Under During Australian Summer"

#127 | Posted by KBM at 2009-12-14 12:27 AM

Snowing somewhere is proof that global warming is a fraud! Never mind that Australia has been going through its worst drought in over 1,000 years. That's nothing compared to a sprinkling of snow.

Ring - So if you think Demming is biased - and therefore cannot be trusted - what is the difference between him and Seth the writer?

Never heard of him, or is it a she. You never know these days.

Nobody who is telling the truth would have to hide their data. In fact they would be shoving it in your face.

Don't worry democrats we won't stop you from buying your Al Gore carbon credits. Just think Gore almost stole the election of 2000 and became president of this country. That scares me more than Obama and that takes a lot because I have seen the crazy shit Obama has already done.

Thanks for bringing that up. I didn't think the pubbies were that smart.

The Y2K scare was averted by proper preparation and a some educated liberal programmers. It sure wasn't any feather in the conservatives cap.

#122 | Posted by ringmaster at 2009-12-13 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

lol. really? Liberal programmers saved us from Y2K?

The plankton are dying, the ocean is dying.
Soylent Green is people.

The Y2K scare was averted by proper preparation and a some educated liberal programmers. It sure wasn't any feather in the conservatives cap.

#122 | Posted by ringmaster at 2009-12-13 10:08 PM

LOL

AP: Global Warming is Not Faked

Clients, especially those who pick up escorts on the street or in bars, are sometimes called "johns" or "tricks".

Maybe they meant this kind of trick.

Zat... this is the best you could come up with to quote?

"1824
Joseph Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere. "

next in blatantly fucking obvious observations, without the sun the earth would be even colder...some speculate, much darker too!

#122 "Thanks for bringing that up. I didn't think the pubbies were that smart."

Now, just wait a cotton pickin minute! I'm not a "pubbies"; I'm an Obama loving liberal.
But, that doesn't mean I'm going to buy into the chicken little "the sky is falling" global warming crap!
My basic question was, why hasn't the oceans risen the way is was predicted to? And, isn't it convienent that everything is based on "2050" when most of us won't be here? What about tomorrow? What is global warming going to do to me TOMORROW? Not 40 - 50 years from now?
AND, there are 2 sides to every story. There are also BENEFITS to global warming. The 2007 edition of the old farmers almanac listed a few of them. Shouldn't those FACTS also be part of the debate AND then let us decide what actions, if any, we should take?
Are the liberals now going to be like the republicans - if you don't tow the party line - you're not a real liberal / democrat? Guess I'm just a DINO!
AND, personally, I'd like a few degrees warmer. Am I, as a human being living on this earth, entitled to that opinion?

"why hasn't(sic) the oceans risen"

Somebody needs to pass 8th grade English.

Well, thanks for the info dipshit.
Oh, dipshit, if you happened to notice, by your dipshit chart, the ocens were beginnig to rise BEFORE we pumped all the carbon dioxide into the air. Oh, another thing dipshit, by your nice dipshit chart, the ocens have risen 20 CENTIMETERS dipshit.(That's less than an inch, if you didn't know dipshit.) Not the 2 FEET we should be at right now, according to dipshit Gore.
Have a nice day dipshit.

Oh, I'm sorry. i should have typed "haven't". Sorry dipshit.
Feel better now dipshit?
Can i go to the 9th grade now dipshit?
Excuse me for a minute dipshit. I'm going to go burn my dipshit trash to add some more carbon dioxide into the air dipshit.
Be back in a few minutes dipshit.

Well, thanks for the info dipshit.
Oh, dipshit, if you happened to notice, by your dipshit chart, the ocens were beginnig to rise BEFORE we pumped all the carbon dioxide into the air. Oh, another thing dipshit, by your nice dipshit chart, the ocens have risen 20 CENTIMETERS dipshit.(That's less than an inch, if you didn't know dipshit.) Not the 2 FEET we should be at right now, according to dipshit Gore.
Have a nice day dipshit.

#143 | Posted by HLAY2009 at 2009-12-14 11:40 AM | Flag: Obama Loving Liberal

20 cm is less than an inch? BWAHAHA!

And the industrial revolution didn't start until ~1920 or so?

LOLOLOL!

You cannot go against nature
Because when you do
Going against nature
Is part of Nature too-
Love and Rockets

Hey, where are all of those horrible hurricanes that were coming with the global warming? Haven't the last 3 years been pretty calm? Even when those brainy scientists were predicting ABOVE average hurricane seasons?
so, the scientists can't correctly predict 6-8 months out (repeatedly)but they can predict 40 - 50 years down the road? I ain't buying it!

In other news, the AP reported that Hulk Hogan did actually body slam Andre, the Giant in WrestleMania III, and it was not faked.

AP: Global Warming is Not Faked, the Moon Landing on the Other Hand

Another Headline completed by: Kanrei

Can i go to the 9th grade now dipshit?

#144 | Posted by HLAY2009 at 2009-12-14 11:43 AM | Flag: Stuck in 5th, no chance of skipping 6th, 7th, and 8th

LOL Damn, back to the 5th grade? Oh, well, Mrs. Evens was at least decent to look at.
I'm sorry - I got my millimeters & centimeters mixed up. Again - I'M SORRY!
So, to correct, we're at about 7 inches rise. Still far from the 2 feet we should be at.
But, that does make me think of something else- remember when we "had" to learn the metric system because the WHOLE world was going to the decimal system? I think that was right about the same time when they were telling us about the coming ice age. Remember it in our "Buddy Weekly Reader". Where the heck is that ice age?

Try adding this little tidbit to the discussion:

ol. really? Liberal programmers saved us from Y2K?

Microsoft and Apple sure aren't conservative companies.

Ask yourself this, if you were running a company that depended on math and science to succeed, would you hire someone who voted for George Bush 3 times?

"The so-called ClimateGate emails show that scientists stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data, but the messages don't support claims that global warming science was faked"

I don't think global warming is fake but the above sentence is utter nonsense.

By any objective analysis, these revelations actually do support arguements that at least global warming science is not reputable. That can't be rationally denied.

Hlay...What is global warming going to do to me TOMORROW? Not 40 - 50 years from now?

Typical ugly American response. God help this nation of idiots with SUV's that are afraid to get the wheels muddy and actually go look at the world around them.

Microsoft and Apple sure aren't conservative companies.

Ask yourself this, if you were running a company that depended on math and science to succeed, would you hire someone who voted for George Bush 3 times?

#153 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-12-14 12:41 PM

Fine ringmaster,
I know, as an American, I 'm probably a little on the spoiled side. Guess i felt I could reap the efforts of those Americans that came before me who gave thier BLOOD & TREASURE helping the rest of the world. We took a bunch of rag tag immigrants and created the greatest nation on earth in less than 300 years.
So, enlighten me. I'm a bleeding heart liberal. i do not want to see anyone suffer, no matter what piece of land they call home. I'd rather live in a mud hut than to think anything I'm doing is causing another human being to suffer. But, i just can't buy into this global warming hoopla. I don't see it. And I'm not so close minded that if someone could help me understand, to the point THAT I DO UNDERSTAND, I'm all for it.
I don't think the questions I've asked are out of line. Scientist predict the upcoming hurricane season every year. And, they've been predicting above average or average hurricane seasons for the last 3 years.Some real bad ones due to global warming. They've been wrong. So, if they can't reliably predict 6-8 months down the road, why should I believe what they say about 40- 50 years down the road? I'm not going with it just because the scientist say so. i need to see it; understand it for myself.
Did you know (I'm going off memory here) that warmer air holds more moisture than cooler air. And that warmer air will disperse moisture over a larger portion of the earth?
Warmer climates will allow farmers to grow a greater variety of crops?
Higher carbon levels will cause plants to photosythisis (sp?) faster, thus producing more food? To feed not only us spoiled Americans, but more of the 6.5 billion people that need to eat?
More people die of cold climate related issues (accidents on ice, etc.) than warm climate issues?
These facts should be part of the debate, and then let us decide. But, no, they leave some facts out, and then just want to cry doom & gloom. So, I approach this subject with a some doubt. I can't buy into it when not all the facts are being presented.
And, I don't know about you, but I trust in God. IF this is really happening, how do we know that it's not all part of HIS plan? He gave us His Son for our transgressions. So, do you think He's really going to let us do ourselves in?

Seems the GW crowd just love to cherry pick their data gathering sites [must make the 'model' come out just right].

...and this shit for brains comes up with an article by Andrew Watts...a Heartland Institute writer?

Next the blind man will tell us this link is gospel truth too:

By the use of the term "Algor" you notify everyone that you are now going to repeat a rant by Rush Limbaugh. No thinking, no real consideration of facts, just mindless repitition of right wing liars doesn't impress me much.

#36 | Posted by danni

It's funny that a liberal would know that Algor is a term used by Rush. I had no idea that he referred to Gore that way until now. And what that tells me is this. If you listen to enough radio to include Rush among your choices of listening, then you must have many liberal shows that you listen to as well. What that means is that you are very likely to repeat what you hear there. Which means you are just as guilty of doing the same thing that you accuse others of doing.

Hlay...You have not yet pointed your finger at the real issue. It's not the temperature change that is the problem here. It's the speed with which it is happening. In the past climate change has always taken thousands or millions of years to progress. Nature evolved with the change and still flourished. This time it is dying off and in massive numbers. Why is this? Because massive changes are taking place in a few generations. Evolution is a long term process. I realize you probably still don't get it, but as long as you refuse to look beyond your own tiny insignificant existence you will never understand.

In the past climate change has always taken thousands or millions of years to progress

Then you know something that no one else on the planet knows.

If the earth's history was a 24 hour model, we have accurate data as far as rate of climate change for almost two minutes before midnight. (do the math if you don't believe me) How do you know what happened the other 23 hours and 58 minutes?

The climategate emails are a perfect example of how right wingers always take the lazy way out of any science discussion. Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example of a guy with three semesters of junior college and only 11 college credits and a c- average, because he learned everything he knows about science in the school cafeteria.

Climategate is nothing but a load of unprovable hearsay perpetuated by fools who can't find any thing better to back their position. Especially those with no real science to back up their accusations.

The Y2K scare was averted by proper preparation and a some educated liberal programmers. It sure wasn't any feather in the conservatives cap.

#122 | Posted by ringmaster at 2009-12-13 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you serious? If you truly believe that then it should serve as a reason to why you also believe in MMGW. Y2K was a scam, just not quite as large as this climate change BS.

Yea right everlong, and had we ignored it there would have been no problem at all. Just ask Joe the plumber.

How do you know what happened the other 23 hours and 58 minutes?

How do you know what happened the other 23 hours and 58 minutes?

en.wikipedia.org

???

That doesn't even begin to answer the question.

As I said in another post, isn't it better to just keep quiet if you can't put forth a reasonable debate?

#131 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2009-12-14 01:16 AM | Reply | Flag: Trick doesn't really mean trick!

Oh, my bad. The article is vindicated.

Had a coach once tell me, regarding news media, don't belive anything you read and only half of what you see...

Also, had a college professor tell me that if a dog bites a man it isn't news, conversely, if a man bites a dog now that is news.

Based upon what I have seen and read it appears that we have a winner in the man bites dog sweep stakes with this global warming crap.

Remember, those that yell the loudest and most often are typically wrong, hence, I give you the Democratic Party

Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort

What a great year! After our earliest open ever we have over 41" total snowfall this year!

Sunny and nice with perfect conditions today. Looking at a a beautiful day on the slopes. Open on 100% of our terrain. Get to the mountain today!

Call (702)-593-9500 for snow report!

Since Zat & co did such a marvelous job at vindicating, er avoiding, their bullet-ridden headline, maybe you geniuses have something to say about the famous Maldive tree, that was not washed away based on the sea levels rising myth, was chopped down to destroy the evidence that AGW theories were a complete myth.

Ring...you never answered the question to my prior posts...Don't ignore me...sorry I am not going away.

'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Abe Lincoln

"It is not clear if any data was destroyed"

"Even though we lied and destroyed data you must believe our every word....
#7 | Posted by 2008ATL"

Are you retarded, or just really, really slow?

" I was trying to find out how many scientists agree with global warming. "

97% of climatologists.

scienceblogs.com

www.scientificblogging.com

#48 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-12-12 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

From scienceblogs.com:

"The 97% of active climatologists is 75 out of the 77 in the survey..."

75!!!!!!!!!

What a fucking joke ZAT. Kind of like you and your cut and paste/spelling nazi posts. FF for you today ZAT.

As I said in another post, isn't it better to just keep quiet if you can't put forth a reasonable debate?

So? If you can't figure it out from there what do you want me to do about it? More importantly, what are you going to do about it?

Ring...you never answered the question to my prior posts...Don't ignore me...sorry I am not going away.

I'm not on any ones beck and call. I have a life of my own to deal with. State your opinion and move on.