Yup. No suprise here. Climate change denyers aren't skeptical patriots standing up against big brother. They are suckers, tricked into defending wealthy corporations who have no loyalty to country or humanity. They buy the propaganda because it fits into the narrative sold to them on their fox propaganda channel.

But this wont change their minds. Nothing will. Now they root for the polluters like a college football team, and switching sides would be feel like admitting defeat to these gorillas. So they defend the polluters. It's like their house is on fire, and they're angry at the firemen, because the arsonists are telling them firemen are socialists . Only problem i have with their idiocy is that it happens to be my house too and their retardation is destroying my children's future alongside theirs.

They really think that it's all a plot so al gore can get rich. They think that is a more realistic reality than one in which massively wealthy and powerful pollution profiteers spread propaganda to protect their profits.

The power of propaganda, brought to you by fox. Wrap it up in patriotism and a flapping flag, and these rednecks will believe anything.

What an active imagination.

~The Greenpeace Report Reveals....

"It doesn't matter what is true,it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level rise of seven meters. That's bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis."
- Greenpeace International

You propagandists are way to easily bought!

If they can control the weather there is no actual way to know what they cannot manipulate. 48 million is a drop in the carbon credit.

Poor deluded little Deniers.

Of course they'll deny this like the poor teabaggers deny being a tool of Armey and Clusterfox.

What's that you say? They are the SAME people?

Well that certainly explains a lot!

You sure like saying "clusterfox" don't you dullAxe. Got anything new?

You sure like saying "LOL" don't you Goatcheese. Got anything new?

You sure like saying "LOL" don't you Goatcheese. Got anything new?

I laugh a lot and like to share. Would a few GOLs (guffawing out loud) once in a while be better? I can accomodate.

"You sure like saying "LOL" don't you Goatcheese. Got anything new?"

???

I was wondering exactly what he meant too, dull. Maybe he'll elucidate

of course when its discovered that a study's conclusions were pulled in the direction of supporting man made climate change, we get CLIMATEGATE!!!! and the corporate media put in on blast on every network.

now we find the opposite, that the polluters are paying people to muddy the debate and cause doubt in the science, and where is the story? on the back page of the drudge retort.

If the story happens to support what the wealthy and powerful want you to think, you'll hear it everywhere you go. if its a truth that threatens to reduce their wealth and power, you wont hear a peep about it.

Can we all just agree that the entire climate issue is crapola?

Can we all just agree that the entire climate issue is crapola?

#14 | POSTED BY MURPHY

SURE! Lets just say climate science is imperfect, and until it is perfect, we can burn carbon in oversized penis-compensation trucks, spray toxins into the air, pour shit into the sea, and keep feeding the greedmonsters. Lets see where that takes us. It'll be the grand republican experiment.

>$48.5 million since 1997

3+ million a year? Someone please fund these guys! They need to spend more like politicians if they're ever going to get anywhere.

~Climate Denier Bankroller Revealed~

Yeah, right. Guaranteed, you don't personally believe that even 1%, rCade. But it's completely fake left: Greenpeace, fake environmentalism, continuation of the same easily debunked lie (big oil) and any bogus claim that is anti-Tea Party that supercedes the quest for "truth". Of course, you could never be swayed by postings convincingly showing false pretense of the claim.

Its all part of a vast right wing conspiracy. It even includes the Supreme Court of the United States. Hillary knows and alerted us over a decade ago. How sick is that.

Ok, what about Al Gore banking in millions on this carbon credits scam and "green" energy? Why is that ignored but this is some how a big deal?

How about how the research colleges are banking in millions on "research" which come to find out is corrupt science.

Just hypocrisy is insane here.

Pragmatous-
re: How about how the research colleges are banking in millions on "research" which come to find out is corrupt science.

No. Only the retards who get their understanding from scientifically illiterate radio blowhards and assorted ideologically driven nuts would say such a thing.

Conversely, just curious what you'll do with NASA's own admission thread:

'NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits'

L Contrarian-
I don't recall NASA posting a thread here.

so, let's get this straight... al gore might make a million or so selling books or lectures so concern about climate change is obviously bunk, but Koch and cohorts stand to make hundreds of billions if they can make us all hate the 'libs' a bit longer but let's not question their motives.

L Contrarian-
Would you care to post a link? Even to this site?

Can you do that, or do you believe that quantum physics is also a bunch of hooey and you refuse to participate in this whole computer/internet web of lies?

A lot of my friends work for Koch Industries in Wichita.

My wife's uncle has bought supplies for them for years. fucking great job.

Koch has done very well.

now to the issue at hand.......

so, we believe that if your funding comes from a source that has a vested interest in the outcome of "research" then we, as concerned citizens, should view the results with skepticism???

sounds reasonable to me.

so that means that I should view the results of "research" with skepticism if the funding is dubious.

done.

re: so that means that I should view the results of "research" with skepticism if the funding is dubious.

Yes, you should. See top of page.

Later blog

Can we all just agree that the entire climate issue is crapola?

Right after we all agree that religion is crapola.

Deal?

Good one montecore. Keep 'em comin'. These dead beat asshats need a bunch more licken's.

As for murphy, get a life. Waving a false flag bought by Koch the roach and 50 cents won't by you a Dewey button anymore.

Here is another good article, but on a much more scientific point of view.

#29
There's already a thread for this story relating the de-populationist's theories.

"so that means that I should view the results of "research" with skepticism if the funding is dubious."

Kind of like health care research provided by insurance companies.

in other news: the earth really is a flat fucking plane...

Greenpeace has admitted that climate deniers are almost 100% free of corruption.

Even if the 48mil was spent 100% of pure hookers and booze, you can't buy much corruption for that.

For real money (and corruption), look at the IPCC.

By ADMITTING that EVEN GREENPEACE cant find more than 50mil in funding for deniers, the Climate Change faithful make themselves look like idiots.

How much you wanna bet that most of that 50mil went to defray legit expenses? (and even if it did'nt, read above. You cant buy much corruption for that.)

"...the paper was thoroughly debunked by actual experts on Arctic sea ice and polar bears ..."

Well, if the paper was debunked by polar bears, that's good enough for me!

Vern dreams of being de-bunked by a cute polar bear.

#33 | Posted by USAF242 at 2010-03-31 12:06 AM | Reply | Flag: THINKS GW SCIENTIST FROZE TO DEATH

Kind of like health care research provided by insurance companies.

#31 | Posted by LetUsPrey at 2010-03-30 11:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Or climate 'scientists' whose grant renewals depend on maintaining a sense of crisis .. there's not much grant money for saying that everything is fine

Axe dreams of being debunked by anything not inflatable, and hopefully still breathing

"Lord Monckton's reprehensible behavior in Copenhagen – where he repeatedly compared college students advocating for a clean energy future to “Hitler Youth” and “Nazis”

Outrageous! Only Liberals are allowed to toss around those terms at people they don't like!

There's already a thread for this story relating the de-populationist's theories.

So? Post a link and maybe I will look in.

Buy now, you should know a little about the subject then just a R/W slanted cursory judgment.

What's a climate denier?

What's a climate denier?

If you don't know by now, you are in the wrong thread.

Or climate 'scientists' whose grant renewals depend on maintaining a sense of crisis .. there's not much grant money for saying that everything is fine

Who's renewals are decided by experts in the field (who are also sometimes competitors...) who assess the data submitted with the grant application that is the basis of the grant application and the strength of the foundation that the hypotheses are drawn from.

It's not as if an application is written in a few days that's full of a bunch of shit they researchers pulled from their asses.

anyone who believes in global warming are hypocrites for using a computer. Go hide in a cave and die. That will zero out your carbon footprint you hypocritical assholes.

Ignore science and just trust politicians and agenda driven political groups. Morons.

Fact is you cannot control weather. you can't it's impossible so go die.

So take that global warming alarmist assholes. Even NASA can't even get their data right!

yet you want me to believe anything you say about global warming when the core data is faulty!!!

wake up!

"NASA can put a man on the moon, but the space agency can't tell you what the temperature was back then."

Climategate: Three of the Four Temperature Datasets Now Irrevocably Tainted

Pragmatism my ass. Try metaphysical manifestation of right wing existentialism.

"become a financial kingpin of climate science denial "

Give me a fucking Break.

Im not sure how to react to this because I haven't gotten my talking points from the Master Denier.

You leftards think everyone who opposes your views are just single cell life forms who only believe what they are told to believe.

See You in November Dickwads.

"See You in November Dickwads"

You better get a move on finding that magic white guy then, cause what you got now couldn't beat a Reed/Pelosi ticket.

"You leftards think everyone who opposes your views are just single cell life forms who only believe what they are told to believe."

Only people that keep repeating the same debunked drivel over and over, which seems to be a majority of you.

"Even NASA can't even get their data right! "

That's like claiming Microsoft can't get it's software right because they keep finding bugs. Bugs ARE INEVITABLE in any complex system. The real issue is do they have a significant effect? In the case of NASA's temperature records the answer so far is no, other than some slight changes to the rankings of the hottest year. Previously 1998 had just beaten out 1934 by 1/100th of a degree. After the correction the situation was reversed.

FTA: Koch Industries has "become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition," spending over $48.5 million since 1997 to fund the climate denial machine.

Koch fuckin' Industries?

aka Wood River Oil and Refining Company.
aka Rock Island Oil & Refining Co.
aka Great Northern Oil Company.

A major energy concern and a huge source of funding for RW enterprises and candidates.

The two Koch brothers run the Koch Family Foundation which is a prime funder of The Cato Institute.

Cato has held a number of briefings on global warming with global warming skeptics as panelists. In December 2003, panelists included Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and John Christy. Michaels, Balling and Christy agree that global warming is, in fact, related at least some degree to anthropogenic activity but that some scientists and the media have overstated the danger. The Cato Institute has also criticized political attempts to stop global warming as expensive and ineffective.

Their dad was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society.

Ergo that these assclowns should be prime instigators and supporters of AGW denialism and disinformation should come as a big fat surprise to exactly no one.

Be Well.

/As ya do
stage left.

50 million dollars, chump change. You Prius driving, eco Nazis need to get a life. Al Gore has more than that in his petty cash fund. PSU received 50 million in grant money much of which came from you and me to fund Michael Mann's fraud hockey stick. If you worried about money and corruption I suggest you look into Tides Foundation and George Soros.

"Climategate: Three of the Four Temperature Datasets Now Irrevocably Tainted"

Pajamas media, apparently that's where backwards hicks gets their science.

I'd like to see the warmers' bankrolls. If Al Gore is any indication, it's fat as hell!

I'd like to see the warmers' bankrolls. If Al Gore is any indication, it's fat as hell!

The only way bullshit "technologies" like wind, solar and ethanol get massive subsidies AND mandates is via 'warming alarmism'.

Selling carbon offsets?

Are you kidding me?

That is like the Catholic Church selling indulgences back in the day.

The fact is if the marketplace were neutral, carbon-energy would slaughter every other form of energy except for nuclear, which is nearly competitive with coal when it comes to powering our grids.

Follow the money?

Absolutely.

Fact is existing "green energy" (sic) could never even put much of a dent into carbon-based energy demands, but remove the massive subsidies and mandates and in a 'free market' green energy wouldn't have a chance without hysteria-driven mandates and subsidies.

Hmmm....

So fuckin what? The PEW foundation spends 220 miliion each and every year with their horseshit lies.

NEVER seen a negative word about them on the drudge, because the left are HYPOCRITES!!!FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!

The politicization of science asking perfectly sound questions has really fucked it up.

Keep politics out of science . . . Please!

It is very interesting that the rhetoric declares people who question MMGW (or Man Made Climate Change as it is now being called) as "deniers" as if the concept has been proven. This concept, of course, is far from being proven (though legitimate concerns exist). Just more biased bullshit from the MSM.

Turn on the TV at 3 A.M. and you'll see no end of infomercials all promising you quick and easy money with their unique investment strategies, a great looking body, miracle cleaning products, whatever. After a while we all see them for what they are, greedy snake oil salesmen selling garbage just out to make a quick buck at our expense.

Easy to figure out.

The climate change controversy is a little harder but not that much.

On one side, scientists all over the world have reached much the same conclusions about the current and future effects of climate change and recommend that steps be taken to reverse or at least mitigate these effects by cutting down on pollution. On the other are people who find other scientists to say that the science is bad, the conclusions are alarmist, there is some kind of elitist conspiracy going on that the corrupt left wing MSM is propagandizing, that it snowed yesterday in Texas so that proves it's wrong, whatever.

On further research you find that the scientists saying that climate change is happening and pollution should be reduced are mostly reputable and those scientists denying it are mostly not. You find that the advocates for doing nothing are funded by polluters.

Who's more like the guy pushing garbage at 3 A.M? Not that difficult to figure out really.

Man made global warming is bullshit, now where's my check?

FWT,

The deniers need people with at least a veneer of credibility. You don't qualify.

So, are you saying that I still can get a check from the GW Hoaxers? They have no credibility.

On further research you find that the scientists saying that climate change is happening and pollution should be reduced are mostly reputable and those scientists denying it are mostly not. You find that the advocates for doing nothing are funded by polluters. #62 | Posted by brock

On one side, scientists all over the world have reached much the same conclusions about the current and future effects of climate change and recommend that steps be taken to reverse or at least mitigate these effects by cutting down on pollution.

-- BROCK

You just made that link all by yourself. There are many scientist all over the world that can measure climate change. However, the DO NOT ALL AGREE as to the cause, as to the definition of "pollution" or as to whether mankind has had any affect or could have any affect on climate change. Just because Al Gore said it, doesn't make it so!

Semantics

n. The meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence etc.

Argumentative 10-year olds use it all the time. Nearly everybody grows out of it. Not FWT apparently.

This is about money and wealth redistribution.

Of course it is. You just haven't figured out which side of the fence to stand behind.

#67

There are many reputable scientists and organizations saying climate change is happening and that one of the causes is pollution. Far fewer in the opposite camp.

Cluttering up a post with links pro and con is not always essential. That's what Google is for and is the best way to form an opinion in the first place and modify it or not later as needed. In the end it comes down to whom you believe. Generally speaking the deniers are like the birthers IMO. A lot of sound and fury, funded by people with various axes to grind, and so signifying nothing much more than that.

Do you really think that parroting "Al Gore, Al Gore" really strengthens your argument?

But when the government uses your taxes to fund toady scientists who come up with absolute bullshit about climate change so Congress can justify more taxes and less liberty, it is not a scandal. Only corporate financing is scandalous, right?

#71 | Posted by Diablo at 2010-03-31 11:06 AM | Reply | Flag: still hasn't passed fifth grade science

"toady scientists who come up with absolute bullshit about climate change"

American Physical Society
National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union

Not real bright are you diablow?

And the point is?

The deniers need people with at least a veneer of credibility.

The warmers need people who aren't making money off global warming.

If you don't know by now, you are in the wrong thread.

#43 | Posted by RingMaster
* * * *

I must be. I know what a "man-made climate change denier" is. I'm one of them.

Is there anyone who denies we have a climate?

I'll be awaiting apologies from the Deniers.

Also, I do love the argument that climate change science is imperfect and therefore we should ignore it til it is perfect. Other things we should consider using that logic on:
1) Vaccination for your kids: Lockjaw? MMR? Pshaw! We don't have the science down quite perfectly on the vaccines yet and sometimes they cause side effects. Don't vaccinate your kids. Lockjaw just means they'll be quiet!
2) Weightloss: Skip the gym! No exercise science is perfect yet or we'd know the best and fastest way to burn those calories! Head to the Waffle House/IHOP and eat away, piggies.
3) Gravity: We still haven't quite explained what force causes gravity. We have theories! But sadly just theories. So don't do anything requiring gravity. In fact, just go flying off the earth! Imagine the frequent flier miles a trip past Saturn could produce!
4) Moving...period: Don't move! Newton said that Force equals mass times acceleration. But we know mass isn't a constant and we think it approaches infinity near the speed of light! Obviously we don't have this whole moving thing down yet. Ignore those eggheads! Don't move! (Except AFK: You should probably move when the socialist library closes and orders you to go home)

The warmers need people who aren't making money off global warming.

#74 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

I'd be willing to bet at least PART of the 97% of scientists who believe in man made climate change aren't making money off of it. :)

Game. Set. Match.

Game. Set. Match.

I love it when one side of a debate declares themself the judge and referee, too. LOL

There are many reputable scientists and organizations saying climate change is happening and that one of the causes is pollution. Far fewer in the opposite camp.

Cluttering up a post with links pro and con is not always essential. That's what Google is for and is the best way to form an opinion in the first place and modify it or not later as needed. In the end it comes down to whom you believe. Generally speaking the deniers are like the birthers IMO. A lot of sound and fury, funded by people with various axes to grind, and so signifying nothing much more than that.

Do you really think that parroting "Al Gore, Al Gore" really strengthens your argument?

--BROCK

Merely repeating your opinion is not the same as defending your argument with a shred of intelligence. There are legitimate and valid arguments on both sides. Something you would see if you employed the Google Search yourself.

As for the Al Gore comment. I apologize. I didn't realize you lacked a sense of humor. It was clearly meant to poke fun at the babbling hypocritical buffoon championing the MMGW cause for profit.

Do you really think that parroting "Al Gore, Al Gore" really strengthens your argument?

Unfortunately that is the meat of many of their arguments. Without Al Gore they'd have nothing to say.

I'd be willing to bet at least PART of the 97% of scientists who believe in man made climate change aren't making money off of it. :)

You're not going to find anyone who is knowledgeable enough to make a real assessment who ISN'T tied somehow financially to this thing.

Hell, even university scientists can be portrayed as financially tied considering their research is funded by grants from various sources. They're portrayed all the time in this light, as shown by Vern above.

Unfortunately that is the meat of many of their arguments. Without Al Gore they'd have nothing to say.

Substitute "Al Gore" with "George Bush".

Sound like anyone you know?

Substitute "Al Gore" with "George Bush".
Sound like anyone you know?

Not me, which is all I give a shit about.

If other people want to, that's their prerogative.

And yes, senseless Bush deflections are just as stupid.

if you can have soros we can have koch

LOL

Sure it is fun to make fun of lard ass Vanderbilt flunk out global warming hoaxer Al Gore. But there are plenty of funny so-called scientists at East Anglia, Penn State and the UN to make fun of. Climategate and lib science are a riot.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!

.....and yet all these douche-nozzles ever whine about is George Soros, all while most pretend they have never heard of Koch.

Since when has the word "denail" the become the new "antiSemite"?

What a crock of shit!

Global warming is the biggest scam that has ever happened, and you people promoting global warming are either heartless control freak shills, or complete morons.

Have you noticed how hard the global warming control freaks are pushing nuclear power these days?

What a bunch of brainfucked retards.

JeffnD,

You really don't have to post here any more. All your minions with those nifty tin foil hats tuned the the frequency of your GIANT BRAIN are posting your thoughts here on DR as you have them.

Just go back to your sauna and toss back a few more vodkas.

Teabag me first, then I will.

"Since when has the word "denial" become the new "antiSemite"?

Be careful JeffD, thin skinned Jews on DR are all ready to go to the head of the "pity me" parade.

You better get a move on finding that magic white guy then, cause what you got now couldn't beat a Reed/Pelosi ticket.

#51 | Posted by axe at 2010-03-31 02:57 AM | Reply
yea right now together they have a positive rating of abount 18..what a dumbaxe

What do the supposed 'conservatives' have against trying to clean up the environment? Let's just suppose that the data is inconclusive... would it not be a 'conservative' approach to err on the side of caution... especially when it comes to our own habitat? what the fuck else could be more important. If the climate denier's are wrong, we screw up the ecosystem, have mass extinctions and starvation to name a few problems among many. If the left is wrong, we've... oops, we've cleaned up the earth, moved our economy towards more sustainable energy and away from the mid-east oil cartels...

why don't you get that?

"why don't you get that?"

Because a Democrat initially suggested it, silly. That's all that really matters, don't 'cha know?

pathetically sad, but unfortunately true. That and it flies in the face of the philosophy of if I can't see it with my own eyes, it must not be true. Except for some magical 2000 year old text... that is.

I love it when one side of a debate declares themself the judge and referee, too. LOL

As much as you like eating crow?

What do the supposed 'conservatives' have against trying to clean up the environment? Let's just suppose that the data is inconclusive... would it not be a 'conservative' approach to err on the side of caution... #92 | Posted by Qual70

I have never met a conservative that didn't have a appreciation and concern for the environment. You are not likely to run into a more ardent conservative than me but yet I built a super insulated, geothermal home for my family and my business. I gave up air travel and changed my business to reduce travel.
Here is what you are unwilling to hear:
I welcome continued research and discussion. IMO two FACTS do not warrant immediate action, first even the UN acknowledged that 100% compliance with Kyoto protocols (not possible) would only result in a lowering of temperature of less than 1 degree in 100 years, second we now have the ability to monitor ice flows and ground temperature from satellites and in 20 years we will have a very accurate temperature picture.
The problem with drastic changes to comply with questionable data is that there is this little thing called “unintended consequences” An example of this is the witch hunt against DDT which has cost underdeveloped countries a loss of life of 50 million plus.
I support ideas like attaching mineral leases with a reasonable fee to be used for renewable energy resources. I do understand the concept of peak oil.
I support incentivized programs like better/stricter building code requirements for insulation and HVAC. A sane increase in CAFÉ standards.
What I don't support is preaching an unproven science to our youth without counterpoint.
Stop the promotion of stupid programs like ethanol alcohol production. Let the free market sort out the winners and losers in the race for alternative energy. Using tax money to prop up programs like corn ethanol and electric cars is unacceptable.
I want to use available US energy to strengthen our county this will create jobs, tax revenue and reduce our trade deficit with countries who don't much care for us.

"first even the UN acknowledged that 100% compliance with Kyoto protocols (not possible) would only result in a lowering of temperature of less than 1 degree in 100 years"

Only if nothing else was done and Kyoto was allowed to expire on schedule.

Nice try.

Only if nothing else was done and Kyoto was allowed to expire on schedule.
Nice try.
#97 | Posted by Zatoichi

Nice try.

Wigley concluded that the impact on projected temperature increases, with all countries doing only what is required under Kyoto and then continuing with business as usual, would be a scant 0.06 to 0.11°C (0.11 to 0.20°F) shaved off the total warming, roughly a 3% reduction.

"with all countries doing only what is required under Kyoto and then continuing with business as usual"

Which is exactly what I said.

I liked this one, Stop the promotion of stupid programs like ethanol alcohol production.

It rally shows how uninformed this conservative really is. The ethanol program is all about keeping the SUVs on the road by reducing our dependency on foreign oil. It's not a global warming issue and only an environmental issue because then it helps reduce pollution.

I liked this one, Stop the promotion of stupid programs like ethanol alcohol production.
It rally shows how uninformed this conservative really is.
#101 | Posted by RingMaster

This conservative is VERY informed about renewable energy and energy savings.

IPCC predictions and is accelerating.
#100 | Posted by Zatoichi

You lose me as soon as you write IPCC predictions. IPCC has much to apologize for and at the present have less credibility that Tiger Woods or John Edwards.

This "constant compliance" scenario would shave 0.11 to 0.21 degrees Celsius (0.20–0.38 degrees Fahrenheit) off global average temperatures by 2100. Stated another way, instead of heating up by 2.5°C (4.5°F), a midpoint in the range of projections of global warming, Earth would warm approximately 6% less.

According to the snow and ice data center, the latest is that the arctic ice sea levels are almost at the same level as they were in 2001.

I have never met a conservative that didn't have a appreciation and concern for the environment.

When you start out a dissertation with a stupid a comment as this you already destroyed any credibility you may have.

I merely pointed out that the issue of ethanol spiked gas was not about any attempts to minimize the effects of global warming or slowing down pollution that you insinuated by adding it to your list of things you think are the relevant issues in this discussion.

In fact you insinuate a whole lot of nonsense. Which makes that first line above nothing but pure bullshit and I'm calling you out on it.

Banning DDT was no witch hunt, Kyoto would have been a good start, 'questionable data' is your definition and not necessarily true, attaching mineral leases with a reasonable fee to be used for renewable energy resources is counter productive, A sane increase in CAFÉ standards means "by your definition only", preaching an unproven science to our youth without counterpoint is again your definition and another insinuation, and last but not least, "I want to use available US energy to strengthen our county this will create jobs, tax revenue and reduce our trade deficit with countries who don't much care for us", is only your opinion and will in fact actually delay the day when we can wean ourselves from the addiction to oil while at the same time ruin our air and water even more.

You are a joke if you think you are any sort of environmentalist what so ever. This one line says it all, "You are not likely to run into a more ardent conservative than me...". Go ahead slap yourself on the back. If the BS got any thicker, I'd need hip boots.

#104...Lonnie, I read that article too. Remember Drudge cherry picks all his links and Drudge is no math whiz. Surface ice is formed when the the water reaches a certain temperature. The thickness of the ice (or actual mass) only increases when that ice doesn't melt the next summer. This can't possible happen in one winter. Thin ice is not more ice, it is more area covered with thin ice.

At any rate your interpretation of the article is not even close to what the article was about. It has nothing to do with 'arctic ice sea levels' what ever that is, but rather Arctic sea ice extent expressed in square kilometers and it only approached the 2001 total area for less then a few weeks this winter. Summer is on it's way now.

Don't try and be a scientist when you don't even understand the concept of averaging. All climate date follows dynamic plot lines. Averaging is used to create a linear plot and a couple of weeks data up or down don't effect that linear plot much at all in the course of decades or centuries.

This is very basic math.

I really do not care who paid to get the truth out the manmade global warming is a hoax - I just care that people are finally getting it.

Better question is who is paying for the lies and the agenda of the phony claims of global warming?