# 97% of Scientists agree..........Al Gore knows what he is talking about



## rightwinger (Jun 22, 2010)

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com

Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.

This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity.

The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century."

As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2010)

Um...Not so fast, Skippy.



> *Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids' says new study made up by warmists*
> 
> Are there really no depths to which ManBearPig-worshippers will not stoop in order to shore up their intellectually, morally and scientifically bankrupt cause?
> 
> ...



*UK Telegraph*


----------



## Yurt (Jun 22, 2010)

lol...al gore was all about warming...now these guys alter the term to simply change and this means they agree al gore is right


----------



## StevenC (Jun 22, 2010)

"very likely"

This shows they are just guessing at the cause.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 22, 2010)

Caught with their fat fucking asses tipping the scale again!

This is how you can tell they're full of crap


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> Um...Not so fast, Skippy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"The study examined 1,372 scientists who had taken part in reviews of climate science or had put their name to statements regarding the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

This is like saying we polled the members at USMB who post dire man made global warming thread and they thought...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...



Epic Fail. Should probably be its own poster


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 22, 2010)

Man made climate change is not real.  Nobody with common sense believes in it anymore.  Even the support from the Euro-weenies has dropped.  Move on.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...



Hate to call you a liar like this, but that article does not mention Al Gore at all.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Um...Not so fast, Skippy.
> ...


I've peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2010)

Another irrelevant thread by Rightwinger...........about something irrelevant!!

If it mattered.............Crap and Trade would be a chip shot field goal. Instead..........the legislation is RADIOACTIVE and stands about as much a chance of passing in Obama-want form as Rightwinger does going out to get a snow cone on a street corner in Crown Heights Brooklyn on a summer night!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



We have a Consensus that the Warmers are full of crap


----------



## Dante (Jun 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...



Damn!  What will Dude say?  Oops! He's already lecturing you and most scientists. 


I'll sit back and enjoy the show


----------



## Dante (Jun 22, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Man made climate change is not real.  Nobody with common sense believes in it anymore.  Even the support from the Euro-weenies has dropped.  Move on.



keeper


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 22, 2010)

Dante said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> ...



Dude blew the thread up with his first reply:

"The study examined 1,372 scientists who had taken part in reviews of climate science or had put their name to statements regarding the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

Oopsies!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 22, 2010)

The video presentation states that the recent warming cannot be explained by natural activities?

What recent warming?

What happened to water vapor?

Yes, Anthropogenic Atmospheric Homeopathy is the one and only answer.

What a fucking joke. If I were studying real science at any college or University I'd start a petition to put you Warmers with Ghostbusters


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 22, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Man made climate change is not real.  Nobody with common sense believes in it anymore.  Even the support from the Euro-weenies has dropped.  Move on.



Typical Right Wing Response

Scientists may have numbers and stuff...but they lack "common sense"

No wonder so many apply the same term to Sarah Palin


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 22, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The video presentation states that the recent warming cannot be explained by natural activities?
> 
> What recent warming?
> 
> ...



Damn Frankie!

97% of Scientists say you are full of shit...

But rightwingnuts still buy into your act


----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Damn Frankie!
> 
> 97% of Scientists say you are full of shit...
> 
> But rightwingnuts still buy into your act


Right...97% of "scientists" who've been involved with the IPCC.

Really easy to get the results you want, when you fish in the pool that has the highest likelihood of giving you the responses you want to get, isn't it?

Didn't go through the link I posted in #2, didja?


----------



## Misty (Jun 22, 2010)

Please tell me you're joking Rightwinger and we can move forward amicably. 

Algore to the rescue~Whooooosssshhhhh.


----------



## Yurt (Jun 22, 2010)

this belongs in the conspiracy section


----------



## Woyzeck (Jun 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> Um...Not so fast, Skippy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well thank Xenu that proved that, now I can go back to polluting the planet consequence-free!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...









Before April 20th 1862, 97% of all scientists believed in spontaneous generation.

Then Louis Pasteur kinda screwed that up.

Skip down to the theory of Germ Theory

Dumbest assertion I've seen in ohhh about 7 days.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2010)

Woyzeck said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Um...Not so fast, Skippy.
> ...


Non sequitur and red herring....CO2 isn't a pollutant and nobody is saying it's OK to pollute.

Thanks for playing, though.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...



I'm going to go a different route than some of the others. I'm going to go after the 4 out of 5 dentists who recommend Trident. You realize that's bullcrap right? That is pure data manipulation.

Guess what! So is the climate bullcrap.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 22, 2010)

Woyzeck said:


> Well thank Xenu that proved that, now I can go back to polluting the planet consequence-free!



Do you honestly think you are polluting the planet by breathing?

Follow up question: Do you honestly think it's a good idea to tell people that breathing pollutes the planet when there are wackos out there who have no problem murdering people for their agenda?


----------



## Cuyo (Jun 22, 2010)

Repeat after me: Global warming is real.

There is no debate.  You hear me?  None.  This, the whole "God" thing, and Bush apologizers are the 3 things that make anything else you wingnuts have to say completely _impossible_ to take seriously.

I could post 30 links proving this true, but it wouldn't matter a lick to youse.  You'd still say every one of them is left wing biased and a part of some grand conspiracy.  

You're insane.  I learned about this in elementary school 20 years ago, stop trying to scapegoat Al Gore.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 22, 2010)

I see why everyone is so confused.....

Expert credibility in climate change ? PNAS

Coming from the National Acadamy of Science (NAS), anything with the word "Science" in it is obviously liberal propaganda


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Damn Frankie!
> ...



Your post #2 was a joke right?
You expected people to take that seriously?  Come on Dude..get real

Yes they polled scientists who are actually experts in the field vs scientists who major in creationism, flat earth and healthy cigarettes


----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2010)

The sample was taken from IPCC toadies....The linked piece demonstrates the trail to the purposefully skewed group that were polled.

Your poll and thread are towering fails.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Man made climate change is not real.  Nobody with common sense believes in it anymore.  Even the support from the Euro-weenies has dropped.  Move on.
> ...



The "science" has been poisoned, skewed, and corrupted or haven't you been paying attention for the past year.  It was never about science; it has always been about politics.  The UN would give anything to have the power to collect tax revenue from countries and that is essentially what this has always been about, global wealth redistribution.


----------



## Yurt (Jun 22, 2010)

global temperatures have gone up and down in the past 1000 years...

shocking i tell you shocking that the earth is in a warm phase...next thing you know we will be in a cool phase...


----------



## Cuyo (Jun 22, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Here we go...





Global wealth redistribution.  Holy shit the conspiracy goes even deeper than we thought.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 22, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Repeat after me: Global warming is real.



Sure, it's real.  Has anybody here said it isn't?  The debate is whether or not we have caused it.  We didn't cause it.  The earth gets warm for 200 years and then it gets cooler for 200 years and so and so on.  In fact, it's just been in the news that we can expect a pretty hot summer because solar activity has risen on the Sun.  Probably why we're already averaging mid 90s here every day.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 22, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Global wealth redistribution.  Holy shit the conspiracy goes even deeper than we thought.



   What the hell do you think the Kyoto Protocol was designed to do?  China and India, developing countries, were allowed to pollute as much as they wanted.  Only American and European pollution was evidently bad for the world.  What does that result in?  Ta-dah!  International wealth redistribution, so there you go, genius.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> The sample was taken from IPCC toadies....The linked piece demonstrates the trail to the purposefully skewed group that were polled.
> 
> Your poll and thread are towering fails.



Sure Dude..

97% of scientists are "toadies" because they have been published in the field.
What were they thinking??

and cigarettes don't cause cancer, evolution is just a theory and the earth is flat

Damn those Scientists!


----------



## Zander (Jun 22, 2010)




----------



## Cuyo (Jun 22, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Global wealth redistribution.  Holy shit the conspiracy goes even deeper than we thought.
> ...



Wow, thanks for pointing that out.  Christ, why did a world full of scientists and professors waste all that time?  I guess we can put all that data to rest, because poster "Don't Taze me bro" has just pointed out, that it is, and always has been about....





Global Wealth Redistribution!

You're entitled to your opinion.  But you are absolutely batshit insane.


----------



## Zander (Jun 22, 2010)

Al's been doing some off shore "drilling" of his own...


----------



## Zander (Jun 22, 2010)




----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > The sample was taken from IPCC toadies....The linked piece demonstrates the trail to the purposefully skewed group that were polled.
> ...


And non sequiturs and red herrings are still non sequiturs and red herrings.

The sample group for the fake poll was purposefully pre-screened to get the desired result...You and the Nation's Comic Book fail.


----------



## Zander (Jun 22, 2010)

Al's got the Rhythm.....


----------



## Zander (Jun 22, 2010)




----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2010)

I'm _*super*_ serial!


----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2010)

_*EXCELSIOR!*_


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...



No offense, but it's hard to take the guy seriously (Al Gore) with all his suvs and private jet...and mansion....etc.

Most people learn by example, not the Simon Says method.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> And non sequiturs and red herrings are still non sequiturs and red herrings.
> 
> The sample group for the fake poll was purposefully pre-screened to get the desired result...You and the Nation's Comic Book fail.



I don't think they care. They don't care what the facts are. If they cared about the facts, they would actually look at them.

a 12 year decline in tempatures somehow proves global warming? It's nonsense.

But it doesn't matter. They would rather look at clearly inaccurate polls and say. Look here. "More "important people" believe us. That proves it!" In reality, it doesn't prove jack.

Last time I checked, 90% of Americans believed in God. Yet they will jump up and down saying that doesn't prove that God exists. And surprise, surprise, they would be right because a poll doesn't prove facts or truths.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Dude!

it ain't work'n pal.....Your attempt to disqualify 97% of climate scientists because they are experts in their field just ain't cutting it

Science............just another Liberal Fad!


----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2010)

What ain't working is you sticking by a poll with a deliberately pre-screened sample group.

Might just as well go to the RNC to get an opinion about how Barry Obolshevik is running the country.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I dont think he was trying to disqualify the scientists at all. I think he was pointing out that the study is inherently flawed because they screen out scientists that disagree with the global warming agenda before factoring them into the poll.

I think you realize that. But I am not convinced you care.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...



So only the 3% of scientists are correct obviously.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 22, 2010)

While 83 percent of Americans say they believe in God and 12 percent believe in a &#8220;higher power,&#8221; 41 percent of U.S. scientists believe in neither, a study by the Pew Research Center revealed. And of U.S. scientists ages 65 and above, nearly half are either atheists or agnostics.

&#8220;However, unlike the general population, younger scientists are more likely than older scientists to have a belief in God or a higher power,&#8221; the study said. &#8220;In addition, more chemists than those in other specialties say they believe in God.&#8221;

&#8220;Scientists are also far more likely to identify religiously as unaffiliated than is the general public (48% vs. 17%) or as atheist (17% vs. 2%).&#8221;

U.S. Study: Older Scientists Less Likely to Believe God Exists

Just a guess, but I think scientists think Al Gore IS God


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 22, 2010)

Chemists sampling their own work?

BWAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 22, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> ...



rdean is right about only 6% of Scientists being Republicans


----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2010)

Just in case you're having a hard time reading for comprehension:


> *The study examined 1,372 scientists who had taken part in reviews of climate science or had put their name to statements regarding the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Critics also said the paper focuses solely on scientists who have made their position on climate change public  failing to consider those "unconvinced" scientists who choose not to speak out  and that the peer review process meant the consensus view was unfairly favoured. *



*UK Telegraph*

What's next...We going to poll stoners for their opinion on Twinkies as representative of everyone who eats?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 22, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Those Bastards!

They screened out those scientists who know nothing about global warming! How dare they try to poll subject matter experts? Next time they should stick with FoxNews viewers...just to make Dude happy


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> Just in case you're having a hard time reading for comprehension:
> 
> 
> > *The study examined 1,372 scientists who had taken part in reviews of climate science or had put their name to statements regarding the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
> ...



winter Twinkies are better than summer Twinkies.  They change the formula for the seasons.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 22, 2010)

When you have no science to support your opinion, do a poll.

When you do the poll, only ask the people know there's no science .

Perfect.


----------



## Yurt (Jun 22, 2010)

dude destroyed rightwinger


----------



## bucs90 (Jun 22, 2010)

Oh God, this again? Just when I thought the documented fact of cooling temps the past decade had sealed the warming freaks fate, here we go again.

Rightwinger, let me "hit you with some knowledge" (Bonus points for whoever can name that movie quote):

If you ask a scientist, who works for a government school, or is funded by a government grant, if they think global warming is real, since it would benefit the government push for global warming legislation............um, do the math. Thats why they screened the participants in the poll. That would be like a CEO asking 100 job applicants "Do you think my company is a good company to work for?" Duh, dumbass, what do you think they'll say?

Truth is, you guys are desperate to keep the green dream alive. You guys are so emotionally invested in it, the mere thought that it is being proven false by each passing year of emerging science terrifies you. 

But hey, somewhere out there if you screen some scientists, and ask them if in their government funded department's opinion, is the goal of government's green legislation worthwhile, well, I'm sure most will say "YES it is" (while whispering "How bout a bigger endowment and grant next semester!!!").


----------



## bucs90 (Jun 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No, man, thats just how propoganda is done. You, being too gullable to know the difference, bites on it every time.

So, lets say in 1939 Hitler wanted to do a poll about whether Jews are a threat to Germany or not. Don't you think he'd screen the people answering?

I know this. If I was given a chance to put a poll on the front page of the New York Times, and could ask "Is Obama the worst president ever", and I was allowed to screen those people who answered, you're damn right I'd get a 97% favorable rate.

Wake up dude.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jun 22, 2010)

Wait so let me get this right. This dude posted a link about a poll in which they surveyed some scientists, who had already signed off on global warming as being mostly man made, and asked them if global warming is man made?

the real question here is, who the hell were the 3% that answered no on the survey after signing off on the bogus science?

LOL


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 22, 2010)

What is next?

Peanut lovers will iinsist on peanut by-products being used to make air filters for large office building air handlers.

Wisconsin cheese producers will be ad censors for the California millk industry.

A vegan board will supervise the beef industry.

A Latino advisory board will end all white people from appearing on tv programs.  Gibbs will still allowed to do press conferences, but only with a Jalapeno on a stick vantriloquist routine.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 22, 2010)

It's Environmental Fascism.

We have a Fascist Democrat Party that tried, in broad daylight, to hand Iraq to the Islamic Insurgents in the middle of a real live shooting war, why should it surprise anyone that the same Fascists will lie about the "science"?

They keep repeating it until we give up.

But guess what?

You fuckers don't control the debate anymore, you don't control the facts, you don't control the media. You can rant and rave and blame the Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster all you want, you lie and lie and LIE AND LIE AND LIE.

And we call you on it every time.

We're all in, so you're fucked.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 22, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Wait so let me get this right. This dude posted a link about a poll in which they surveyed some scientists, who had already signed off on global warming as being mostly man made, and asked them if global warming is man made?
> 
> the real question here is, who the hell were the 3% that answered no on the survey after signing off on the bogus science?
> 
> LOL



Denyers aka:Heretics


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 22, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Wait so let me get this right. This dude posted a link about a poll in which they surveyed some scientists, who had already signed off on global warming as being mostly man made, and asked them if global warming is man made?
> 
> the real question here is, who the hell were the 3% that answered no on the survey after signing off on the bogus science?
> 
> LOL



Same group who has no opinion on the question of do you want to live or die.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2010)

Just when I thought two stories on this joke of a poll would suffice, up pops another:



> Dear Professor Schneider,
> 
> I am writing in regards to your recently published paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, titled 'Expert Credibility in Climate Change.'
> 
> ...



Global warming: Open letter to Stephen Schneider


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 22, 2010)

They can't win, they have no science behind them, so they put their thumb on the scale.

They give us "polls" as proxies for repeatable experiments. Seriously? You make Ghostbusters look like real scientists.

They lie about the "Facts", they use tree rings, until its exposed as a fraud and its "pay no attention to the man humping the tree rings behind the curtain, I am the great and powerful Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster!"

They can't do a single repeatable laboratory experiment demonstrating that 200PPM increases in CO2 causes measurable warming, so they tip the scale and add 600,000PPM of CO2, like its no big deal.

They tell you GHG's are CO2, CH4 and always leave off the most powerful one, the one they never want to discuss: H20. That's because the Environmental Fascists can't get control of Western Civilization be telling you to stop taking such hot showers.

You're all done.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2010)

How would you like your numbers; broiled, baked, poached or pan seared?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> How would you like your numbers; broiled, baked, poached or pan seared?



Dude, how come we hear so little from the East Angelia Insane Clown Posse and Data Cooking Center these days?


----------



## Douger (Jun 22, 2010)

Bullshit. Fear mongering ans gred.
Murkin elites and Europeans want da money.

I see no problem with a bit of smoke.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> _*EXCELSIOR!*_


*THAT'S* where I heard it!!!!


----------



## txlonghorn (Jun 22, 2010)




----------



## edthecynic (Jun 23, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> *a 12 year decline in tempatures* somehow proves global warming? It's nonsense.





bucs90 said:


> Oh God, this again? Just when I thought* the documented fact of cooling temps the past decade *had sealed the warming freaks fate, here we go again.





Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Repeat after me: Global warming is real.
> ...


You deniers need to get your spins going in the same direction. 

Obviously the global cooling whackos say global warming is not real!! They have been saying we are in a new Ice Age since the 70s. 

The last decade has been the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement, and to deniers that documents global COOLING. 

BTW, the Sun's activity is in a low cycle now and the globe has been warming in spite of it.


----------



## oreo (Jun 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...




I am certain that those scientific evidence papers that were buried--we're from people called the opposition-that their-credibility regarding their knowledge and intelligence has been attacked--  What's new there?




Problem is-- 97% of the world want this book--


----------



## Tom Clancy (Jun 23, 2010)




----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

> _*PNAS Climate Change Expert Credibility Farce*_
> Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Tue, 06/22/2010 - 16:01
> 
> A new, purportedly scientific report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) is claiming that more &#8220;top&#8221; environmental scientists believe in global warming. Moreover, the report also claims that the scientists who do believe in global warming&#8212;now re-labeled anthropogenic climate change (ACC)&#8212;have higher credibility than those who do not. All of this is based on an &#8220;extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data.&#8221; Citing such data is like saying &#8220;most of the people who write for conservative magazines are conservatives.&#8221; In other words, the study is devoid of factual significance and possibly purposely misleading. More propaganda from the sinking global warming ship.
> ...



PNAS Climate Change Expert Credibility Farce | The Resilient Earth


----------



## SuMar (Jun 23, 2010)

Global warming, Scientists, Al Gore climate change

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ]YouTube - Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman[/ame]

The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com​
Really?


----------



## Father Time (Jun 23, 2010)

SuMar said:


> Global warming, Scientists, Al Gore climate change
> 
> YouTube - Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman
> 
> ...



[youtube]qZzwRwFDXw0[/youtube]

I find it interesting that Dude's source implies that there's a conspiracy by scientists in peer review to keep other scientists down. It's a conspiracy claim everyone with a crackpot claim rejected by scientists makes.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

The people doing the suppression and stacking the deck are admitting as much themselves...The horse is out of the barn.

Having trouble clicking on links, seeing direct quotes and reading for comprehension?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jun 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident&#8230;. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...



Since when does consensus determine fact?  And the cultists deem anyone who disagrees to be unqualified?

Yeah, gonna file this one right next to the "9/11 was an inside job" file.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jun 23, 2010)

And BTW... Al Gore is a fraud.... 97% of us think so at least.


----------



## Father Time (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> The people doing the suppression and stacking the deck are admitting as much themselves...The horse is out of the barn.
> 
> Having trouble clicking on links, seeing direct quotes and reading for comprehension?



Ok prove they are suppressing ideas and don't even start with those climategate e-mails everyone takes out of context.

[youtube]uXesBhYwdRo[/youtube]


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jun 23, 2010)

How do you take this out of context:

*I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where&#8217;s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.*


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > The people doing the suppression and stacking the deck are admitting as much themselves...The horse is out of the barn.
> ...


There's no taking "...even if we have to redefine what peer review literature is" out of context.

There's also no taking &#8220;Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?&#8221; ...out of context.

I've posted enough links in this thread alone to show anyone who can bothered to take a dispassionate view that the IPCC warmist cartel is now simply going to rig the whole process in their favor.

Your closed mind on the subject is your problem.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



They're useful idiots and totally indoctrinated. You can't use facts or logic or studies or real science, they'll just repeat lie after lie after lie.


----------



## Father Time (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Oh bullshit, you can take anything out of context,

 Now go on and prove there's a big massive conspiracy. It seems to be the only way people can rationalize lots of scientists disagreeing with them.


----------



## keee keee (Jun 23, 2010)

Global warming is as full of shit as the Obama administration is!!!!!! when I think of FRAUDS and liars I think of both Al Gore and Barrack Obama!!!!!! I don't know which one is full of more shit. I think it might be Al he must have a blockage that's why he is so Bloated and fat!!!


----------



## keee keee (Jun 23, 2010)

No one is buying this farce anymore!!!!! we all know it is a fraud!!!!!!


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Oh bullshit, you can take anything out of context,
> 
> Now go on and prove there's a big massive conspiracy. It seems to be the only way people can rationalize lots of scientists disagreeing with them.


I'm taking nothing out of context...I read all the e-mails and have read the parsings of the deliberately fudged computer code.

The ongoing conspiracy to exclude all who don't go along with the global warm...er....climate change fundamentalist orthodoxy is operating right in front of your face.

The only people who cannot admit it anymore are those with either emotional or financial investments in continuing the hoax.


----------



## Father Time (Jun 23, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



Yes because logic tells us that the reason most scientists disagree is because of a big massive conspiracy theory. Never mind the fact that it completely violates Occam's razor, and sounds completely stupid.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

You never answered the question as to what Occam would do if he discovered people distorting data, making up data out of thin air, destroying contrary data, blacklisitng contrary views, fabricating polls with outlandish results.

Occam's razor indeed.


----------



## Father Time (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Oh bullshit, you can take anything out of context,
> ...



THEN PROVE IT!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, it's a basic principle of science. So far you've given jack shit.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

The proof is and has been in front of your face...I've posted several links in this thread.

All it takes on your part is the will to face the facts.


----------



## Father Time (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> You never answered the question as to what Occam would do if he discovered people distorting data, making up data out of thin air, destroying contrary data, blacklisitng contrary views, fabricating polls with outlandish results.
> 
> Occam's razor indeed.



First of all go on and prove they're doing all that crap.

Second you never asked that question before

Thirdly, what's a simpler solution.

A few bad eggs

or

thousands of scientists have committed to a fraud of unprecedented proportions.

You still fail Occam's Razor.


----------



## Father Time (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> The proof is and has been in front of your face...I've posted several links in this thread.
> 
> All it takes on your part is the will to face the facts.



Which links, post them again and point to the specific parts that prove a conspiracy theory.


----------



## Father Time (Jun 23, 2010)

Here's a joint statement by some of the scientific associations that agree with global warming.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

You're telling me all those international organizations got together to form a huge hoax to ... do what... sell hybrid cars?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

Oh, and you find _*absolutely nothing*_ fishy about a poll that came up with results reminiscent of an "election" for Saddam Hussein or Hugo Chavez? 

P.S....I blew that piece of crap poll out of the water in post #2.


----------



## Father Time (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Oh, and you find _*absolutely nothing*_ fishy about a poll that came up with results reminiscent of an "election" for Saddam Hussein or Hugo Chavez?
> 
> P.S....I blew that piece of crap poll out of the water in post #2.



I never said the poll was accurate, I just find the idea of conspiracy to be ludicrous. Although looking back trying to tie that to your sources was guilt by association on my part. Sorry.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

You find the idea of IPCC "scientists" conspiring to get the results they want to get ludicrous, yet re-re-re-posting a poll with results that would do Kim Jong Il proud is worthy of citation as credible.

Mmmmmm'kay.


----------



## Cuyo (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> You never answered the question as to what Occam would do if he discovered people distorting data, making up data out of thin air, destroying contrary data, blacklisitng contrary views, fabricating polls with outlandish results.
> 
> Occam's razor indeed.



I can't believe the depth to which this has to be explained to you, but let's continue.  You've shown zero proof that any of those things happened.  If you bothered to watch Time's video, it provides excellent audio-visual insight into how the e-mails have been warped to say what you want them to say.  So please, one at a time or all at once, I need proof that data has been distorted, made up, destroyed, or fabricated.

[Hint: There is none.]

The best you can find will require jumps Evil Knievel couldn't make.  But I do understand there are holocaust deniers as well, and those who swear the moon landing was faked; No amount of proof will convince these people otherwise, as no amount of proof will convince you climate change is real; that is, until you have to take a fucking air-conditioned canoe to work, at which point you'll _still_ swear it's all natural.

What I don't understand and refuse to accept, is that moon landing deniers and holocaust deniers are not granted equal consideration every time their respective topics are discussed; essentially because they're fringe loon-jobs.  So how this consideration is granted global warming deniers, who are equally loony and willfully ignorant; That's something I just don't understand.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

There's lots of proof in the links-inside-links to the various sources I've cited on this very thread....From the mouths of the very people who are perpetrating the hoax and pogrom of dissenters, no less.

Assuming that you've bothered to check the sources --a huuuuuuge stretch on my part-- what evidence would you accept?

P.S....Speaking of holocaust denial, it is the IPCC warmist cartel that is using the tactics of the holocaust denier: Source one another in the echo chamber, while excluding and ignoring the reams of evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Cuyo (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> There's lots of proof in the links-inside-links to the various sources I've cited on this very thread....From the mouths of the very people who are perpetrating the hoax and pogrom of dissenters, no less.
> 
> *Assuming that you've bothered to check the sources --a huuuuuuge stretch on my part-- what evidence would you accept?*
> 
> P.S....Speaking of holocaust denial, it is the IPCC warmist cartel that is using the tactics of the holocaust denier: Source one another in the echo chamber, while excluding and ignoring the reams of evidence to the contrary.



  That's hard to answer.  Given that there is nearly total consensus in the global scientific community- I just don't know that anything you could offer would overcome that.  You'll have to give me what you've got.

I'd need a motive and proof of an act.  I first learned about global warming 20 years ago.  It's been in and out of the news, coming to a head only recently.  Your assertion is, that for all that time it's been a conspiracy... So far reaching that it's breached public schools, universities, thousands of scientists are involved... World leaders, professors, textbook producers... What is the goal in all of this?  Is it "Global Wealth Redistribution" as your contemporary DTMB claims?  Ya know I heard those exact same words before, on a different (non-political) board... Chimed in with me then too... "Global Wealth Redistrubution?"  Who is broadcasting this noise?

It's very much like the moon landing hoaxers.  For all the people who had to be involved, all the falsified data, thousands of people marching to the same drum beat, millions of facets that would have to be synchronized - For all the trouble it would have caused, we could have built a rocket and went to the moon.

So for the billions of dollars in "Fake" research, millions of complacent participants, none of which has provided a smoking gun in all these decades we've been studying this phenomenon - You think it more likely that it's a conspiracy than that it's actually real?  And again - To what end?

Seriously, this is some X-Files smoking man stuff.

I'm not re-reading the whole thread.  Re-post the most incriminating, most blatant smoking-gun you've got and we'll take it from there.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

It's hard to answer because you've never given a moment's thought that the global warm...er...climate change cartel could be wrong.

And unless you come up with something definitive as to what you'd accept, then all your asking anyone to do is to give you permission to continue rejecting them....Something I'm not going to fall for.

In the meantime: *IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie | The Beacon*

If the "consensus" is a lie, then there needs to be a lot of people getting together and promulgating that lie for such a "consensus" to exist; i.e. a conspiracy.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 23, 2010)

97% sounds right. The other 3% work for right wing think tanks.


----------



## Cuyo (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> It's hard to answer because you've never given a moment's thought that the global warm...er...climate change cartel could be wrong.
> 
> And unless you come up with something definitive as to what you'd accept, then all your asking anyone to do is to give you permission to continue rejecting them....Something I'm not going to fall for.
> 
> ...



Like I said, I don't know exactly what I would accept, but I'm fairly certain you lack both the credentials and resources to override of the underlying evidence (Consensus among the entire world, except right-wing Americans).

But I will read your article, and what's more I'll read the source document (until I feel comfortable I've got the gist of it).  I expect I will find that A.) This man _did_ make a statement similar to "Claiming consensus was a lie", but that B.) It doesn't demand the conclusion you've come to; It has been exaggerated, taken out of context, or both, and C.) If he is truly an expert, he himself is not a global warming denier.

I'll check back, let me know if I'm wrong.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 23, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...


When Dr. Phil Jones admits that he made the software deliberately create the "hockey stick" as he has done already and confessed to the fraud.... there is no context other than "I committed fraud."

This is like Bernie Madoff going to the cops and bragging "oh I robbed their asses blind!"

and idiots like you are still out there going "Say it ain't so, Jones!"

Sooner or later, you're going to have to resolve the fact that you've been lied to and it's time to move on with your lives and find some other bogey man to freak out about.


----------



## JWBooth (Jun 23, 2010)

> 97% of Scientists agree..........Al Gore knows what he is talking  about


Absurd assertions, Parthian shots,  a priori principles, addresses,  admissions, affidavits,  affirmances, affirmations, allegations,  announcements, annunciations, answers,  apostrophes, apriorisms, asseverations,  assumed positions, assumptions,  attests,  attestations, averments, avouchments,  avowals, axioms,  basiss,  categorical propositions, comments,  compurgations, conclusions,  confirmations, contentions, cracks,  creeds,  data,  declarations, depositions, dictums,  disclosures, enunciations, exclamations, expressions, first principles, foundations, greetings,  grounds, hypothesis, hypothesis ad hoc,  insistences, instruments in proof,  interjections, ipse dixit, legal evidence,  lemma, major   premises, manifestos, mentions,  minor premises, notes,  observations, philosopheme, philosophical propositions, phrases,  positions, position papers,  positive declarations, postulate,  postulations, postulatum, predicates, predications,  premises,  presuppositions,  proclamations, professions, pronouncements,  propositions, propositional functions,  protests,  protestations, questions,  reflections, remarks,  representations,  say-sos, say,  sayings, sentences,  stances, stands,  statements, subjoinders, sumptions, supposals,  sworn evidences, sworn  statements, sworn testimony,  testimonials, testimonium, testimony,  theorem,  thesis, thoughts,  truth-functions, truth-values, truth   tables, utterances, vouch,  witness, & words 
Next room.
<----------------


----------



## Cuyo (Jun 23, 2010)

> Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as &#8216;2,500 of the world&#8217;s leading
> 11
> scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate&#8217; are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.



There's your quote, page 10 into page 11.  Do you interpret that quote as proof that global warming is a hoax?

It's an interesting piece.  Believe I'll keep reading it.  But is this quote from your post describing this article...


> IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie | The Beacon



a fair cross-section of this paper?  Not by a long shot.  Or maybe you think it is?  Tell me, did you read the source paper for the article you linked me to?  Did you realize that quote I just posted is actually what the fellow said?  If not, has reading it in context changed your conclusion at all?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > It's hard to answer because you've never given a moment's thought that the global warm...er...climate change cartel could be wrong.
> ...


IOW, you're prejudiced and there's no evidence that you would accept.

Just coming out and  saying so would be a real time saver for everyone involved.


----------



## Cuyo (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Dude, I could turn that exact same statement on you, word for word.  The difference is, the evidence in this dispute is overwhelmingly on my side, until you can show me otherwise.  I'd like a response to my last post.  (post 109)

[edit] I'm gonna be waiting for awhile, ain't I?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

The difference is that I believed the warmists back in the late '80s....Then I decided to have an independent thought in my head and do my own research.

After doing said research, I concluded that both the content and structure of the international warmist cartel resembles a twisted amalgamation of Malthusian declinism, Luddism, with a healthy  smattering of quasi-religious Medieval flat-Earth "inner circle" orthodoxy. My opinion viz. the similarities between the warmist cabal is reminiscent of a religious cult was a few years in advance of *Michael Crichton's* exact observation.

That's what happens when you suspend disbelief long enough to dispassionately consider other information.


----------



## Cuyo (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> The difference is that I believed the warmists back in the late '80s....Then I decided to have an independent thought in my head and do my own research.
> 
> After doing said research, I concluded that both the content and structure of the international warmist cartel resembles a twisted amalgamation of Malthusian declinism, Luddism, with a healthy  smattering of quasi-religious Medieval flat-Earth "inner circle" orthodoxy. My opinion viz. the similarities between the warmist cabal is reminiscent of a religious cult was a few years in advance of *Michael Crichton's* exact observation.



But for GODS SAKE, LEAD ME TO YOUR RESEARCH!  I'm not blacklisting anything you have to offer, you just haven't offered me anything.  I asked for the best piece of evidence you have, and you handed me an article titled "IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim was a Lie," but in reality, he said it was disingenuous for IPCC not to clarify that not all participants in the consensus were climatologists, and the man himself is not a denyer!

Do you not see why I'm unimpressed?  Give me something solid and I'll consider it.  Or please, if you think I'm out of line and that link you gave me was a smoking gun, just say so!


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

Right now, the evidence is becoming glaringly evident.

Take this thread, about a poll with results that are patently ridiculous, and subsequent links to sources debunking that sham of a poll, starting with post #2.

If you can't find 97% a laughable result, then you've given up on all pretense of objectively considering anything else.


----------



## Father Time (Jun 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Give me a link, I can't find an article where he admits to any fraud.


----------



## Cuyo (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Right now, the evidence is becoming glaringly evident.
> 
> Take this thread, about a poll with results that are patently ridiculous, and subsequent links to sources debunking that sham of a poll, starting with post #2.
> 
> If you can't find 97% a laughable result, then you've given up on all pretense of objectively considering anything else.



So it would then be safe to say, that your take on the matter is "There's a chance that the poll is flawed, therefore global warming is a giant conspiracy."

And that skewed link you gave in 104 is the best evidence you have thereof.

Is that right?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 23, 2010)

American Thinker: Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Your proof.  Of course if this isn't good enough, nothing probably is.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 23, 2010)

American Thinker: Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Your proof.  Of course if this isn't good enough, nothing probably is.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> So it would then be safe to say, that your take on the matter is "There's a chance that the poll is flawed, therefore global warming is a giant conspiracy."
> 
> And that skewed link you gave in 104 is the best evidence you have thereof.
> 
> Is that right?


No...It's beyond obvious that the poll is flawed. This would lead anyone thinking independently to believe that someone thinks that they can brazenly peddle the patently ridiculous....And where there's such billowing clouds of smoke, it only logically follows there's an awful big fire burning somewhere. 

Couple that with  this list of gaffes, blunders and outright fabrications (for starters), and the conclusion that there's some treachery going on behind the scenes is no stretch of the imagination at all.


----------



## Cuyo (Jun 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> American Thinker: Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud
> 
> Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online
> 
> Your proof.  Of course if this isn't good enough, nothing probably is.



Context, Fitz.  From the interview your "American Thinker" uses as it's source:



> E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
> I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

As for the "consensus" gambit and the "you're no scientist" stratagem, this posting (#27):



> There are a whole lot of things in the history of science which show just how poisonous it is to argue something on the basis of popularity among scientists. To cite just a single, very egregious example: The bacterial causation of peptic ulcer disease (PUD). In the mid-80s, 99.9% of the world's experts thought that PUD was primarily caused by excess stomach acid, which was, in turn, caused by things such as stress, smoking, alcohol, spicy foods, whatever. The evidence for this was overwhelming. The most lucrative operation for surgeons was the vagotomy and antrectomy (ulcer operation). The most lucrative drug was Tagamet (which reduced acid secretion). A lone pathologist in Australia, with no "credentials" came up with the idea that ulcers were caused by a bacterium (helicobacter pylori). No one believed him. He couldn't get the work published. He certainly wouldn't have qualified for any funding. It took nearly 20 years for the world to come around to his way of thinking. In 2005 he (Robin Warren) won the Nobel Prize. Press Release: The 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine Today, the vagotomy and antrectomy, as well as Tagamet, exist primarily as historical reminders of the folly of scientific certitude.



How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?


----------



## Jack Fate (Jun 23, 2010)

99.9% of the people think Al Gore is a sleaze bag and a political hack.

National Enquirer: Gore accused of sex attack on Portland masseuse | KREM 2 News | KREM.com | When it Matters Most | National News


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 23, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > American Thinker: Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud
> ...


That's why I included the Daily Mail article as well.  They've been very good reporting on climate change from BOTH sides I've seen, but as time has worn on they've become increasingly anti-AGW because evidence keeps showing up the IPCC EAU-CRU and NASA have lied to them.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > The sample was taken from IPCC toadies....The linked piece demonstrates the trail to the purposefully skewed group that were polled.
> ...



wait a minute....Dean said 96% of scientist buy into this,the Democratic ones....so 1% of republican Scientist also bought into it.....fascinating....there is hope....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> The sample was taken from IPCC toadies....The linked piece demonstrates the trail to the purposefully skewed group that were polled.
> 
> Your poll and thread are towering fails.



OK, Dooodeeee..... you silly ass.

Every single Scientific Society on this planet state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As does every National Academy of Science, and every major University.

Come on now, show me where all these scientists are stating that AGW is real. And not some made up list from OISM, replete with the names of scientists that were dead at the time of the creation of the list.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



I see. Science and Nature are just full of lies, correct? What fools you fellows be.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > The sample was taken from IPCC toadies....The linked piece demonstrates the trail to the purposefully skewed group that were polled.
> ...


You obviously didn't follow the link, and subsequent links, in post #2.

Because if you had, you'd already know that it was that very holy-and-above-reproach NAS that created the rigged poll!

Schmuck!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> As for the "consensus" gambit and the "you're no scientist" stratagem, this posting (#27):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?

How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
There have been various surveys or petitions claiming that thousands of scientists are skeptical that humans are causing global warming. The thing is, when you peruse these lists, you find very few scientists who actually have expertise in climate science. So what do the experts think? A 2009 survey found that over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced humans are significantly changing global temperatures (Doran 2009). Now a new study has digged into this topic a little deeper and broader. As well as covering a larger number of climate scientists, they also researched how many papers each scientist published and how often their work was cited (Anderegg 2010). How many published climate scientists think most of recent global warming was due to human activity? Between 97 to 98%.

The results are strikingly consistent with Doran's earlier work. The overwhelming majority of climate experts think humans are causing climate change. Next, they dig a little deeper. They examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. What they find is the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups

*Of course, the way to falsify a hypothesis or theory is to present actual evidence. Thus far, such evidence has not been presented by those proclaiming themselves to be sceptics.

So, why doesn't someone present that the absorbtion bands for CO2 and other GHGs do not really exist? Present evidence that the glaciers and icecaps are not melting at an accelerating rate? That the permafrost and Artic clathrates are not now producing CO2 and CH4 that they were not 50 years ago? 

You fellows are real long on yap-yap. Very short on evidence.*


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 23, 2010)

Political Junky said:


> 97% sounds right. The other 3% work for right wing think tanks.




oh bravo!!!..............now that convinced me right there....i dont need to look into this anymore....Dude....Frank....Zander...Yurt....Taz....you others....your all full of shit....Junky just notched it for her side...fascinating statement....Gore would be proud....


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > As for the "consensus" gambit and the "you're no scientist" stratagem, this posting (#27):
> ...


Not so short on evidence that they have to make up fake polls that come up with absolutely absurd results.


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 23, 2010)

Newsflash:

The Oregon woman recently linked to Big Al's hot -n- heavy is no less than...


Old Rocks.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Come on, idiot child, how about a Scientific Society that states AGW does not exist? How about a major University that states AGW does not exist. A National Academy of Science.

After all, most first and second world nations, of whatever political bent, have a National Academy of Science, so why aren't there some that state AGW is false?

Are all of the major Univesities in the world skewed?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 23, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


Crocks, don't even bother.  You're so discredited, I'm stunned you still have the gall to post your bullshit.

But the high priest of the CLCC must go on I guess, regardless of how few still believe.

Like the last surviving member of the Mythras Mystery Cult.


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 23, 2010)

*Wait until Pachauri gets a load of this: &#8220;The UN&#8217;s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was &#8220;only a few dozen experts,&#8221; he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony,&#8221; as reported in the National Post.*

Doh!!!


Climate Change Fraud - Global warming defectors ? at the highest levels


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 23, 2010)

*Pielke (2007) and Sarewitz (2010) agree that the IPCC has failed in its role as an &#8216;honest-broker&#8217; and has moved towards being an &#8216;issue advocate&#8217; in Pielke&#8217;s terminology, or even on some occasions a &#8216;stealth issue advocate&#8217;*

http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG[1].pdf


Doh!


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 23, 2010)

*Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?*Mike Hulme and Martin Mahony
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
Review Article for Progress in Physical Geography
5180 (plus) words
12 April 2010
Abstract


Doh!!!


http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG[1].pdf


----------



## Oddball (Jun 23, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Nice try at changing the subject....No, not really.

The stupid NAS poll, which is the subject of this thread, is a fraud....And a extremely transparent fraud at that.

If all the "science" is settled, why would NAS commission and release such an easily debunked and so positively laughable poll?

Is there not one scintilla of intellectual curiosity in your head?


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 23, 2010)

It was a poll likely rushed for release to coincide with the oil leak.

As always, the global warming masters care little about climate, and far more about power.

Their golden child is no longer singing such an alluring tune these days though...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 23, 2010)

And the idiots continue the yap-yap in leiu of any thing real to say.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 23, 2010)

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png


----------



## Cuyo (Jun 23, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> *Wait until Pachauri gets a load of this: The UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen experts, he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony, as reported in the National Post.*
> 
> Doh!!!
> 
> ...



That required some hard core cherry picking, as I broke down several pages ago after reading the first 11 pages of the 21 page document.

Don't be a child.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 24, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> And the idiots continue the yap-yap in leiu of any thing real to say.



...as opposed to your misleading, inaccurate and fraudulent posts?


----------



## gettingold (Jun 24, 2010)

need some oceanfront property in arizona? I have some to sell you


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 24, 2010)

gettingold said:


> need some oceanfront property in arizona? I have some to sell you



We're still trying to find any Pacific atoll that is now underwater as a resultant loss of ice from the "melting polar ice caps"

We suspect that baby seals are drinking up the melted ice, or maybe tree rings are soaking it up?


----------



## konradv (Jun 24, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Man made climate change is not real.  Nobody with *common* sense believes in it anymore.  Even the support from the Euro-weenies has dropped.  Move on.



Where I come from, we don't aspire to common.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 24, 2010)

Well here, you're very common.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 24, 2010)

Yurt said:


> lol...al gore was all about warming...now these guys alter the term to simply change and this means they agree al gore is right



The scientific term has long been "climate change" - it's the popular media that latched onto "global warming".


----------



## Coyote (Jun 24, 2010)

StevenC said:


> "very likely"
> 
> This shows they are just guessing at the cause.



No.  It shows that they are speaking accurately - scientists will almost never say something is absolute - particularly complex systems.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 24, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> ...





And today....3% of the scientists remain skeptical that the earth is round.

Climate Change Skeptics...the new Flat Earthers?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 24, 2010)

Coyote said:


> StevenC said:
> 
> 
> > "very likely"
> ...


When I step onto an airliner, I don't want it to be "very likely" that Bernoulli's Principle will work to keep the jet in the air.

You want to go and re-arrange the lives of everyone in the world by force, you better have a fat lot more than "very likely".


----------



## Coyote (Jun 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > StevenC said:
> ...



Like I said - the almost never say a complex theory is absolute or fact and climate change is very complex.

Who is more believable: those who are saying it's "very likely" human activities are involved in climate change or those who are categoricaly denying man can have any effect on climate?  "Very likely" vs "absolutely not".


----------



## Oddball (Jun 24, 2010)

Going by the proven fact that man's contribution to global CO2 output is in the low single digits as a percentage, it's not any kind of a stretch that "very unlikely" is the most logical and believable answer.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 24, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...



Even a retard will tell you that the climate changes. The "very likely" sentiment isn't very definitive.


----------



## Claudette (Jun 24, 2010)

And Al Gore laughed himself all the way to the bank with the millions he made off the scam. 

Oh yes.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 24, 2010)

Claudette said:


> And Al Gore laughed himself all the way to the bank with the millions he made off the scam.
> 
> Oh yes.



He would have made more selling out to the oil companies like Bush


----------



## Oddball (Jun 24, 2010)

_*BOOOOSHWHACKED!*_

Thread over.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> Going by the proven fact that man's contribution to global CO2 output is in the low single digits as a percentage, it's not any kind of a stretch that "very unlikely" is the most logical and believable answer.



The atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen strongly since about 1850, from 280 ppm (a value *typical for warm periods* during at least the past 400,000 years) to 380 ppm.

How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities? "...In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon. Their response to warming may be real, but it is less than their response to increasing CO2 and other climate changes for the moment."

The major change that occurred during the past 150 years was industrialization and also changes in the land surface through deforestation, reforestation, urbanization and desertification.  It's more then just CO2 direct CO2 emissions.  The building of the Hoover Dam produced a mini area of climate change (and caused earthquakes) - the constant claim that human activity can not possibly cause global climate change seems refuted by many smaller areas around the world with micro-climate changes (for example big cities).

So, what is this "proven fact"?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 24, 2010)

ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT: MYTHS AND FACTS UPDATE


----------



## Claudette (Jun 24, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > And Al Gore laughed himself all the way to the bank with the millions he made off the scam.
> ...



LMAO

I was wondering how long it would take someone to mention Bush. 

Tell me. Is Palin next???? She had to have something to do with it. LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 24, 2010)

I don't think there's this much of a Consensus on gravity.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> Um...Not so fast, Skippy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The UK Telegraph, that bastion of unbiased journalism.
Just last year they published an article that claimed scientists had proof that "Greenhouse gases  could have caused an ice age" and "Scientists have warned that filling the atmosphere with Greenhouse gases associated with global warming could push the planet into a new ice age".
When asked what scientist was the fool that made that statement no one could be found.
No retraction to date at UK Telegraph. 
Imagine that.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT: MYTHS AND FACTS UPDATE



Interesting link, one that also clearly has an agenda as it is coming from an energy policy viewpoint.  It does make good points regarding the difficulty of transforming both economies and energy use but does it really dispute the science?

It claims:
Though a causal link between human carbon-dioxide emissions and accelerated warming *has not been proved*, national policymakers broadly support curbing carbon emissions via government regulation.

There are numerous articles that indicate a very strong correlation between human activity and climate change that makes it as close to 100% certainty as something that complex can be.

Just one example:  IPCC - Working Group I

It also claims: that burning fossil fuels accounts for only 3.27% of atmospheric CO2 but, when I go to the site "withouthotair.com" I can't find how he derives that figure.

It doesn't actually dispute the science though - rather, it raises questions (but no answers) intending to discredit the science but are really more like red herrings (for example why are other planets warming) and goes into the economic impacts of climate-change related policies.

According to this source:


> Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. *Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.*



According to the source I previously used:


> On time-scales of ~100 years, there are only two reservoirs that can naturally exchange large quantities of CO2 with the atmosphere: the oceans and the land biosphere (forests and soils). The mass of carbon (carbon is the C in CO2) must be conserved. If the atmospheric CO2 increase was caused, even in part, by carbon emitted from the oceans or the land, *we would measure a carbon decrease in these two reservoirs*.
> 
> Number of observations of carbon decreasing in the global oceans: *zero*.
> 
> Number of observations of carbon increasing in the global oceans: *more than 20 published studies using 6 independent methods*.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 24, 2010)

Big business and big polluters have always tried to demonize anyone and everyone that reports the fact that man has contributed to global warming.
That slant that ONLY left wing liberals believe those facts is mainly an American phenomenon.
Just like pro wrasslin.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 24, 2010)

Coyote said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT: MYTHS AND FACTS UPDATE
> ...


Right...And the IPCC doesn't have an agenda.

Whatever.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 24, 2010)

Claudette said:


> And Al Gore laughed himself all the way to the bank with the millions he made off the scam.
> 
> Oh yes.



I am no fan of Al Gore.
Hoever, he invested his life savings into green technologies. Only a liberal would be foolish enough to believe the venture capital that made him $ off of his investments was from ignorant people naive to the facts of proven science.
To date Al Gore has reinvested his earnings into other PRIVATE entities and donated millions to charities.
What the hell is wrong with any of that? As a business owner of 3 corporations that knows all about venture capital I know that what Gore has done is good for the economy, workers and the future.


----------



## Rinata (Jun 24, 2010)

Why does the truth threaten you bagheads so much??? Oh, never mind. In this case it's because it involves Al Gore.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



I didn't say that - but they are composed of a broad variety of scientists covering multiple disciplines and they are required to publish under a peer review process.  Agenda or not - those are pretty stringent standards.

As you say..."whatever" - in the end, can you dispute the science directly (rather than by implication)?  That's what matters isn't it?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 24, 2010)

Coyote said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Nonsense.

I think Meister has the link which shows that the IPCC has accepted less than 11% of the total scientific studies submitted to it.

Now, if you were a betting person, what do you think the conclusions of the papers they accepted came to?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



What's the acceptance rate of other scientific bodies?  (For example the AMJ accepts only 6-8% of all the material submitted to it and JAMA is 8%. ) That number is meaningless standing alone.  You could argue that papers aren't accepted based on their conclusions but I suspect it has more to do with how those conclusions are reached.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 24, 2010)

Coyote said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 24, 2010)

Coyote said:


> What's the acceptance rate of other scientific bodies?  (For example the AMJ accepts only 6-8% of all the material submitted to it and JAMA is 8%. ) That number is meaningless standing alone.  You could argue that papers aren't accepted based on their conclusions but I suspect it has more to do with how those conclusions are reached.



AMJ and JAMA don't have political agendas...IPCC does.

Anyone who can still deny that just isn't living in reality.


----------



## FireFly (Jun 24, 2010)

Scientist are clueless: Absence of sunspots make scientists wonder if they're seeing a calm before a storm of energy or will we have another little ice age?


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What's the acceptance rate of other scientific bodies?  (For example the AMJ accepts only 6-8% of all the material submitted to it and JAMA is 8%. ) That number is meaningless standing alone.  You could argue that papers aren't accepted based on their conclusions but I suspect it has more to do with how those conclusions are reached.
> ...



I can think of a baker's dozen or so that fit that description.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What's the acceptance rate of other scientific bodies?  (For example the AMJ accepts only 6-8% of all the material submitted to it and JAMA is 8%. ) That number is meaningless standing alone.  You could argue that papers aren't accepted based on their conclusions but I suspect it has more to do with how those conclusions are reached.
> ...



JAMA doesn't....?  Some might disagree there. IPCC has a higher acceptance rate then JAMA apparently too.  

Sounds like you're tossing  red-herrings. 

Do you have any evidence to show that the material submitted was not accepted due to conclusions rather than faulty or sloppy methodology?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 24, 2010)

I am getting nowhere in another thread so I will repost here:

I have some general problems with GW theory. Everyone here keeps throwing up numbers and temperatures and forgets to realize that they are skirting the larger issue. Over all the information that I have been able to look up covering GW, I have to say that I believe the earth IS warming. That seems quite verifiable through the evidence despite the personal attacks and some cooked data. The thing is that is where everyone rests the debate at and yet that is only HALF of the theory. There IS a general consensus that the earth is warming, there is ABSOLUTELY NO consensus on the actual cause and effect of that warming. That is what I am interested in and that is where the proponents on GW fail to convince me. When I first signed up on this board I did not believe that the earth was warming, hadn't seen any real evidence to prove it but I have to admit that there has been a very good case for a warming earth so I will give the people here the benefit of the doubt. Now, instead of screaming where are the numbers, show us how the increase in carbon has unequivocally caused the growth in warming the earth. 

A big part of the problem is that the atmosphere is NOT warming. From all the evidence I have seen it looks as though it is the OCEAN that is actually warming and that ties into the second problem that GW runs into. What is the impact of warming? Truth be told, a warmer earth would be BETTER for life. Cold is not conducive to life in general and the many of the warmest places on earth are the most abundant in life. Granted, the Sahara is very warm and not exactly the garden of Eden but that is not due to the heat but the rainfall. A warmer earth would actually INCREASE rainfall and available water. The doom and gloom segment of GW has little evidence outside of conjecture and computer models that were built by scientist that need bad results to gain funds. I do not prescribe to a conspiracy and generally believe conspiracies are bullshit but there are very real instances where people WANT to believe that the world is in danger and we need to fix it. There are a TON of parallels with GW theory and the Ozone scare. The same case was presented, there WAS a hole in the Ozone - the earth is warming. CFC demonstrably depleted Ozone - Carbon IS a greenhouse gas. There was absolutely no theory on HOW CFC reached the ozone or if they were depleting it - I have yet to see any conclusive facts that tie carbon into the rise of temperatures OR predictable outcomes from GW. GW theory simply makes that jump all on its own just as the ozone alarmists did in yesteryear. There are MANY things that global temperatures are caused by with the LARGEST factor being the sun, by magnitudes. 


The sad part about all this is that the grater debate is totally missed with those not being GW's written off because people are so stuck in their conclusions and GW's written off as alarmists for the same. If there is a real threat I damn well want to know it. From what I have seen in the data the only provable threat is the rise in PH levels in the ocean that could cause REAL damage. However, most estimates put that off for 75 years, hardly an emergency and there is still a lack of proof that carbon is the problem. We need REAL science and what we are getting is political infighting.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2010)

OK...........so lets just say we conceed that 97% of scientists agree..........yada......yada...........


Nobody cares.....................


It still holds that there is *not one single solitary stitch of proof *that anything man does to "fight" global warming will have ANY effect anyway!!!!





Accordingly..............another thread of epic fail by another k00k...................


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 24, 2010)

> A big part of the problem is that the atmosphere is NOT warming. From all the evidence I have seen it looks as though it is the OCEAN that is actually warming and that ties into the second problem that GW runs into.



Thats because it is harder for a gas to hold heat than a liquid


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> > A big part of the problem is that the atmosphere is NOT warming. From all the evidence I have seen it looks as though it is the OCEAN that is actually warming and that ties into the second problem that GW runs into.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats because it is harder for a gas to hold heat than a liquid




















This place would suck without them.....................


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What's the acceptance rate of other scientific bodies?  (For example the AMJ accepts only 6-8% of all the material submitted to it and JAMA is 8%. ) That number is meaningless standing alone.  You could argue that papers aren't accepted based on their conclusions but I suspect it has more to do with how those conclusions are reached.
> ...



Medical journals do not have political agendas?
Dude, respectfully, you need to think real hard on that one and get back to us.
American health care is the fastest growing part of the economy for the last 50 years and you claim they are not politically motivated.
Much more than the IPCC.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> > A big part of the problem is that the atmosphere is NOT warming. From all the evidence I have seen it looks as though it is the OCEAN that is actually warming and that ties into the second problem that GW runs into.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats because it is harder for a gas to hold heat than a liquid











How awesome to have zero responsibilities in life except to blog????!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Oddball (Jun 24, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


They don't have a political agenda that stands to reach into each and every pocket on the face of the Earth, and control who gets to produce how much of what for whom, as does the IPCC, if not the UN itself.

There, you happy now?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



No.

Politicians have a political agenda.

Nations have a political agenda.

If the "pro-global-warming" crowd has any agenda - it is probably a very real fear that climate change may cause serious problems down the line and it needs to be addressed now.

Don't blame them for the actions and rhetoric of politicians.

My personal feelings - based on evidence, are that climate change is a reality, and that while it may not be wholly caused by humane activities, it is strongly influenced by it.

So what to do?

That's where the politics comes in.  Denying it doesn't change the reality that is is very likely occuring and very likely -based on evidence - influenced by human activities?  Why waste time on denying it?  Isn't it better to prepare for it and try to carve out solutions that are at least somewhat beneficial to us as oppposed to the head-in-the-sand gambit being expoused by the skeptics?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2010)

How funny life is.............

Gore will be remembered for one thing: losing his pants.

My question is.........how the hell do you message a piece of wood???


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 24, 2010)

Coyote said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Plan A for the conservatives is to deny global warming exists

Plan B is to admit it exists but deny that humans have anything to do with it

Plan C is to admit humans caused global warming but claim it is too late to do anything about it.

In any case, nothing gets done


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...





So........what? We put a windmill in everybodys back yard? Drive an electric car that goes for 40 miles and then take out the bike for the rest of the trip to work?? But 14 chords of wood to heat our homes for the winter?


The fcukking k00ks............whats always absent from their sh!t is the discussion of the reality that even if we were to embrace GW hook line and stinker, we are decades from having the technology to be doing ANYTHING about it. Anybody with half a brain knows that there are huge winners attached to this hoax. Every single one of them knows that their conventional solutions are a bunch of expensive as hell BS.


Curious people should take a read here............about how much of a total sham wind and solar power is. Its a fcukking joke.................http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/11311/Dont_Get_Burned_by_Solar_Power.html


----------



## Coyote (Jun 24, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Succinct and accurate


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2010)

Oh..........not to mention that discussion of CO2 as a "pollutant" is an abject farce.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 24, 2010)

so...   no one wants to address the rest of the story here.  I still see a lot of temp reading without anyone addressing what I posted a page ago?


----------



## KissMy (Jun 24, 2010)

Albany, New York has one of the longest running actual temp measurements in USA

Average Annual Temperature chart for Albany, New York from 1820 to 2008

In 1820 was 49F, & in 2008 it was still 49F.

WHERE THE HELL IS THE WARMING??????


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 24, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> I am getting nowhere in another thread so I will repost here:
> 
> I have some general problems with GW theory. Everyone here keeps throwing up numbers and temperatures and forgets to realize that they are skirting the larger issue. Over all the information that I have been able to look up covering GW, I have to say that I believe the earth IS warming. That seems quite verifiable through the evidence despite the personal attacks and some cooked data. The thing is that is where everyone rests the debate at and yet that is only HALF of the theory. There IS a general consensus that the earth is warming, there is ABSOLUTELY NO consensus on the actual cause and effect of that warming. That is what I am interested in and that is where the proponents on GW fail to convince me. When I first signed up on this board I did not believe that the earth was warming, hadn't seen any real evidence to prove it but I have to admit that there has been a very good case for a warming earth so I will give the people here the benefit of the doubt. Now, instead of screaming where are the numbers, show us how the increase in carbon has unequivocally caused the growth in warming the earth.
> 
> ...



The Warmers long for the days when everything north of the Ohio River was under 600 feet of ice.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 25, 2010)

FA_Q2, we are riders on planet Earth.  If you figure out how to stop wild fires, earthquakes, volcanoes, and weather let me know.  Until then, the best we can do is figure the best use for everything there is here.  In some cases that might be preserving land for endangered species.  In other cases it might be drilling for oil in Alaska.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 25, 2010)

Dude said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



I am always happy Dude. 
Your claims above are withour fact or foundation. When claiming a vast world wide conspiracy opinion falls short of reality.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 25, 2010)

They are well founded.

The UN is a blatantly corrupt organization and the IPCC fruit hasn't fallen far from the tree.

Exclusivist elite echo chambers aren't conspiracies, per se...They're business as usual.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 25, 2010)

Dude said:


> They are well founded.
> 
> The UN is a blatantly corrupt organization and the IPCC fruit hasn't fallen far from the tree.
> 
> Exclusivist elite echo chambers aren't conspiracies, per se...They're business as usual.


mmmmm food for oil truthiness and integrity....... 

God love that Koji Annan.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 29, 2010)

still nothing?  will I wait forever?


----------



## KissMy (Jun 30, 2010)

Finally she got away. Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her "to just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming."


----------



## daveman (Jun 30, 2010)

Al Gore is





He's playing simple-minded lefties for suckers.  The goal is not to "save the planet!!"...it's about government control over individual lives.  And the Goracle getting richer.

You idiots are playing right into it.  Suckers!!


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> I am getting nowhere in another thread so I will repost here:
> 
> I have some general problems with GW theory. Everyone here keeps throwing up numbers and temperatures and forgets to realize that they are skirting the larger issue. Over all the information that I have been able to look up covering GW, I have to say that I believe the earth IS warming. That seems quite verifiable through the evidence despite the personal attacks and some cooked data. The thing is that is where everyone rests the debate at and yet that is only HALF of the theory. There IS a general consensus that the earth is warming, there is ABSOLUTELY NO consensus on the actual cause and effect of that warming. That is what I am interested in and that is where the proponents on GW fail to convince me. When I first signed up on this board I did not believe that the earth was warming, hadn't seen any real evidence to prove it but I have to admit that there has been a very good case for a warming earth so I will give the people here the benefit of the doubt. Now, instead of screaming where are the numbers, show us how the increase in carbon has unequivocally caused the growth in warming the earth.
> 
> ...


Bumpdiggity for some answers.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 30, 2010)

Dude said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > I am getting nowhere in another thread so I will repost here:
> ...



I would not say that.  There is a general consensus that human activities play a role in it - thus far majority of the scientists in the effected disciplines agree.  What they don't agree on is how much of an affect or whether it's reversable.



> That is what I am interested in and that is where the proponents on GW fail to convince me. When I first signed up on this board I did not believe that the earth was warming, hadn't seen any real evidence to prove it but I have to admit that there has been a very good case for a warming earth so I will give the people here the benefit of the doubt. Now, instead of screaming where are the numbers, show us how the increase in carbon has unequivocally caused the growth in warming the earth.
> 
> A big part of the problem is that the atmosphere is NOT warming. From all the evidence I have seen it looks as though it is the OCEAN that is actually warming and that ties into the second problem that GW runs into*. What is the impact of warming? Truth be told, a warmer earth would be BETTER for life.* Cold is not conducive to life in general and the many of the warmest places on earth are the most abundant in life. Granted, the Sahara is very warm and not exactly the garden of Eden but that is not due to the heat but the rainfall. A warmer earth would actually INCREASE rainfall and available water. The doom and gloom segment of GW has little evidence outside of conjecture and computer models that were built by scientist that need bad results to gain funds. I do not prescribe to a conspiracy and generally believe conspiracies are bullshit but there are very real instances where people WANT to believe that the world is in danger and we need to fix it. There are a TON of parallels with GW theory and the Ozone scare. The same case was presented, there WAS a hole in the Ozone - the earth is warming. CFC demonstrably depleted Ozone - Carbon IS a greenhouse gas. There was absolutely no theory on HOW CFC reached the ozone or if they were depleting it - I have yet to see any conclusive facts that tie carbon into the rise of temperatures OR predictable outcomes from GW. GW theory simply makes that jump all on its own just as the ozone alarmists did in yesteryear. There are MANY things that global temperatures are caused by with the LARGEST factor being the sun, by magnitudes.



A warmer earth is not necessarily better becuase the effects are  not that simple.

For example - changes in ocean temperatures or an influx of fresh water from melting sea ice,  can cause changes in currents that moderate climate in many parts of the world.  Britain is at the same latitude as the southern portion of Alaska, but it's climate is far milder due to the effects of the Gulf Stream.

Other changes could include more violent weather patterns, flooding, hurricanes.  In addition while a warmer climate could produce more lush growth, it could also produce changes in the spread of diseases (and vectors) and pests.  The tropical areas have some of the worst diseases and parasites.  On the positive side - the warming of cold areas (parts of Russia) could increase agricultural potential, but at the cost of ways of life in other parts of the world.

The problem is - it's not definitive, and it really can't be due to the scope of the problem, the global issues, politics and difficulties in predicting.



> > The sad part about all this is that the grater debate is totally missed with those not being GW's written off because people are so stuck in their conclusions and GW's written off as alarmists for the same. If there is a real threat I damn well want to know it. From what I have seen in the data the only provable threat is the rise in PH levels in the ocean that could cause REAL damage. However, most estimates put that off for 75 years, hardly an emergency and there is still a lack of proof that carbon is the problem.* We need REAL science and what we are getting is political infighting.*
> 
> 
> Bumpdiggity for some answers.



I think there is a lot of real science out there, but the politics are shrouding it.

Good post by the way - I missed it where it originally was


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 30, 2010)

Dude said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > I am getting nowhere in another thread so I will repost here:
> ...


Why am I not surprised Dupe is too stupid to see how wrong the post he bumps is???

The data shows the Troposphere is WARMING in spite of all attempts by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH to cook the data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift.

Everything else in the bumpped post is as accurate as the atmosphere claim.

UAH and RSS are atmospheric measurements of the Troposphere in the chart below.


----------



## theHawk (Jun 30, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...



And 100% of IT techs like myself say he is full of shit with his claims of him inventing the internet.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 30, 2010)

theHawk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> ...


Of course he never claimed he "invented the internet" but that will never stop an America-hating CON$ervoFascist from lying about it.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2010)

edtheparrot said:
			
		

> Why am I not surprised Dupe is too stupid to see how wrong the post he bumps is???
> 
> The data shows the Troposphere is WARMING in spite of all attempts by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH to cook the data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift.
> 
> ...


How many times does that count the reporting stations in Russia & China which don't even exist?


----------



## Jarhead (Jun 30, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident&#8230;. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...



See how these "polls" work?

As you stated at the beginning...

"Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident......"

Truth is, the commercial said:

"4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugarless gum to their patients who chew gum"

Well.....DUH??????????

Then it makes you ownder...who was that 1 out of 5 dentists that did not reccommend sugarless gum.

Yet you saw it as "4 out of 5 recommend trident"...but it did not say that.

So the same thing holds true here. Exactly how did they come up with the 100 "scientitsts" Cross section of exactly who?

DO not believe everything you hear and read. Likely, you are being duped.

True elbow grease personal research is required.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 30, 2010)

Dude said:


> edtheparrot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


None. The satellites are in the atmosphere, not Russia and China. But it is not surprising you wouldn't know that!!!


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2010)

What were the satellite measurements form the 1930s?

BTW, I notice that the heading is _*SURFACE and*_ satellite readings, so the question still stands as relevant.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 30, 2010)

Dude said:


> What were the satellite measurements form the 1930s?
> 
> BTW, I notice that the heading is _*SURFACE and*_ satellite readings, so the question still stands as relevant.


And the blue line of surface measurements is right in between the two satellite measurements, so it seems to be quite accurate according to the satellite data. So obviously your imagined Russian and Chinese distortions are as insignificant as a denier's denial.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2010)

Right...How many of the measurements in that composite came from the reporting stations which don't exist?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 30, 2010)

Dude said:


> Right...How many of the measurements in that composite came from the reporting stations which don't exist?


Again, obviously not enough, if any, to make the data less accurate than the satellites!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jun 30, 2010)

Who in the hell has yet to figure out that Al Gore and his mignons are crackpots?  Geeze Louise....


----------



## daveman (Jun 30, 2010)

Dude said:


> How many times does that count the reporting stations in Russia & China which don't even exist?



Or the single station representing all of Canada above the Arctic Circle?



> In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.
> 
> Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.
> 
> ...


It's easy to win when you stack the deck.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2010)

The monitoring station placed at the exhaust port of the Antarctic research station reports massive warming.


----------



## daveman (Jun 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The monitoring station placed at the exhaust port of the Antarctic research station reports massive warming.



  Socialism now!  Or we're all dooooooomed!


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The monitoring station placed at the exhaust port of the Antarctic research station reports massive warming.


Not when using ANOMALIES!!!!!!!!!

All the exhaust port will do is create a warmer 30 year AVERAGE that any change in temperature is measured against at that particular station. That's why real scientists use anomalies and deniers don't!


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 30, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Why am I not surprised Dupe is too stupid to see how wrong the post he bumps is???
> 
> The data shows the Troposphere is WARMING in spite of all attempts by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH to cook the data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift.
> 
> ...



Way to avoid addressing the topic at all and just push the same rhetoric.  I will wait for you o actually address the points brought up....


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 30, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Why am I not surprised Dupe is too stupid to see how wrong the post he bumps is???
> ...



Translation....don't confuse me with facts


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 30, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Why am I not surprised Dupe is too stupid to see how wrong the post he bumps is???
> ...


How is exposing the falseness of your claim that the atmosphere isn't warming with data that shows the Troposphere is, in fact, warming avoiding the topic????


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 30, 2010)

Coyote said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...


That was the point that I was making.  There has been little study as to the REAL effects that would occur in a warmer setting and without that study the 'crisis' does not exist.  As you pointed out there isn't even a consensus whether or not we can even reverse the trend let alone a culprit.  You did mention that many believe that man has SOME involvement but how much is KEY and also if our involvement is even related to carbon emissions at all.  I understand that warming could cause adverse effects and did not mean to state that it would be all positive but the other side of the coin DOES unequivocally state that it will be all negative without any real science behind it.  I cannot count the number of times I have heard the 'everything will become like the Sahara' scare tactics that come from the GWers.  The fact remained that without some understanding of the effects of global warming I cannot get behind the MASSIVE changes that many GWers are demanding that we undergo.  



Coyote said:


> > > The sad part about all this is that the grater debate is totally missed with those not being GW's written off because people are so stuck in their conclusions and GW's written off as alarmists for the same. If there is a real threat I damn well want to know it. From what I have seen in the data the only provable threat is the rise in PH levels in the ocean that could cause REAL damage. However, most estimates put that off for 75 years, hardly an emergency and there is still a lack of proof that carbon is the problem.* We need REAL science and what we are getting is political infighting.*
> >
> >
> > Bumpdiggity for some answers.
> ...


The politicizing or the issue has certainly clouded the grater questions.  The money alone involved with that effect can certainly effect the outcome of the experiments and all the controversy makes one quite suspicious.  It is particularly true with inane numbers like 97% of anything.  I would like to see unfettered science here but that is unlikely for ANYTHING.  I can agree the earth is getting warmer but to the rest, I need some evidence and the political infighting is concentrating the issue on the temps without regard to the rest.  I am sure the information is out there, it has simply been buried under the other crap.

It was first posted in the 'death of real science' thread that PC started.  I was not getting traction there more than likely from the title as it is negative at the start so I posted here in search of more level headed GW supporters.  Unfortunately, even here that has been hard to find.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 30, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> How is exposing the falseness of your claim that the atmosphere isn't warming with data that shows the Troposphere is, in fact, warming avoiding the topic????


All the data I have seen represents the real increases in the ocean.  If that is incorrect then I can acknowledge that point.  I have no problem with that.  The problem I have is the fact you IGNORED the entire post that single sentence.  Whether or not the atmosphere has risen .4 C in the last 35 years is moot to the rest of the post.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 30, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > How is exposing the falseness of your claim that the atmosphere isn't warming with data that shows the Troposphere is, in fact, warming avoiding the topic????
> ...



No its not.

Especially since so many posters are refuting the fact that there is warming. Just like 97% of the scientists say it is


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 30, 2010)

AND I AM NOT REFUTING IT......


nerve mind, you can't get past the talking points long enough to actually debate.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 30, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Of course he never claimed he "invented the internet" but that will never stop an America-hating CON$ervoFascist from lying about it.



EPIC FAIL!!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFJ8cHAlco"]Al Gore Created the Internet[/ame]


----------



## daveman (Jun 30, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Especially since so many posters are refuting the fact that there is warming. Just like 97% of the scientists say it is


I don't dispute there may be warming.  Given the fact that the data is so cherry-picked and massaged, it's hard to be sure.  But climate has always been cyclical.

What I dispute is that man has anything to do with it.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 30, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > How is exposing the falseness of your claim that the atmosphere isn't warming with data that shows the Troposphere is, in fact, warming avoiding the topic????
> ...


So you admit that the temp of the atmosphere has risen .4 C. The relevance is I said you were as wrong about everything else as you were about the atmosphere not warming. Why should I waste my time debunking your other claims when first you deny the atmosphere is warming and then when you finally admit it you then say it doesn't matter if the atmosphere is warming.

So let's take your CFC/Ozone BS.



> FA_Q2 - There was absolutely no theory on HOW CFC reached the ozone or if they were depleting it





> CFC's and Ozone Depletion
> 
> Chemistry of Ozone Depletion by CFCs
> 
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 30, 2010)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Especially since so many posters are refuting the fact that there is warming. Just like 97% of the scientists say it is
> ...





> Plan A for the conservatives is to deny global warming exists
> 
> Plan B is to admit it exists but deny that humans have anything to do with it
> 
> ...



So...you are up to Plan B (good for you)

Give it a few years and you can move to Plan C


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Norton, you are a mental case....That claim was bitch slapped in post #2.

That 97% number is every bit as phony as the "election" results for Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 30, 2010)

KissMy said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Of course he never claimed he "invented the internet" but that will never stop an America-hating CON$ervoFascist from lying about it.
> ...



 EPIC MORON!!!

He said he took the initiative IN CONGRESS in the creation of the internet, which he did!

But it is no surprise CON$ervoFascists do not know the difference between "initiative" and "invent."


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 30, 2010)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Especially since so many posters are refuting the fact that there is warming. Just like 97% of the scientists say it is
> ...


And the natural cycle should include cooling cycles along with the warming cycles. But for the last 100 years we are getting only neutral cycles between the warming cycles.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 30, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You Lie - Loser

Al Gore said: "During my service in the United States congress I took the initiative in creating the internet"

The message therapist finally got away from evil scary Al Gore.


> Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her "to just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming."



I know you edthecynic are the message therapist's little friend, but it is ok to tell the truth about Al Gore now little girl. The world is not going to be destroyed by global warming if you don't continue to lie for Al Gore. You don't have to give up your rights, liberties & be under the control control of this evil scary man any more. It's ok now, your friends will understand.


----------



## daveman (Jun 30, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



We don't know for sure, given the way the data is cherry-picked and manipulated.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 30, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 1, 2010)

*Geological Society of America.*

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several long-term causes of the current warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth&#8217;s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in a rapidly changing 150-year trend. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends. 

As a result, greenhouse gas concentrations, which can be influenced by human activities, and solar fluctuations are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. Although the 3rd IPCC report allowed that solar fluctuations might have contributed as much as 30% of the warming since 1850, subsequent observations of Sun-like stars (Foukal et al., 2004) and new simulations of the evolution of solar sources of irradiance variations (Wang et al., 2005) have reduced these estimates. The 4th (2007) IPCC report concluded that changes in solar irradiance, continuously measured by satellites since 1979, account for less than 10% of the last 150 years of warming. 

Greenhouse gases remain as the major explanation. Climate model assessments of the natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for this warming conclude that rising anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s (Meehl et al., 2004). The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now ~30% higher than peak levels that have been measured in ice cores spanning 800,000 years of age, and the methane concentration is 2.5 times higher. About half of Earth&#8217;s warming has occurred through the basic heat-trapping effect of the gases in the absence of any feedback processes. This &#8220;clear-sky&#8221; response to climate is known with high certainty. The other half of the estimated warming results from the net effect of feedbacks in the climate system: a very large positive feedback from water vapor; a smaller positive feedback from snow and ice albedo; and sizeable, but still uncertain, negative feedbacks from clouds and aerosols. The vertical structure of observed changes in temperature and water vapor in the troposphere is consistent with the anthropogenic greenhouse-gas &#8220;fingerprint&#8221; simulated by climate models (Santer et al., 2008). Considered in isolation, the greenhouse-gas increases during the last 150 years would have caused a warming larger than that actually measured, but negative feedback from clouds and aerosols has offset part of the warming. In addition, because the oceans take decades to centuries to respond fully to climatic forcing, the climate system has yet to register the full effect of gas increases in recent decades.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 1, 2010)

*American Meteological Society.*

AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century. 

Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of fossil-fuel burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the Earth system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at a rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds, pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further effects.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 1, 2010)

How many more scientific societies and organizations would you like me to post that state unequivocally that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. 

How many can you post links to that state otherwise?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> How many more scientific societies and organizations would you like me to post that state unequivocally that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.
> 
> How many can you post links to that state otherwise?




All a hoax s0n...................you stupid fcukk. You still think this is about the environment. This is what happens to people who spend their lives living in the middle of fcukking nowhere. You become a mental case.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> How many more scientific societies and organizations would you like me to post that state unequivocally that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.
> 
> How many can you post links to that state otherwise?



Another interesting technique.  Start multiple societies with the same memberships to support your position.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 1, 2010)

KissMy said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


You just can't stop yourself from lying. That's why you are a CON$ervoFascist.

He is undeniable saying that he took the initiative IN CONGRESS to get the funding needed to create the internet. In the part you edited out he says IN CONGRESS he took the initiative on a number of other projects. Only pathological liars would spin that to claim Gore said he "invented" the internet, which is why only CON$ make that claim.

Since you know you can't defend your lie you try to change the subject to another lie.
Your white flag is accepted.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 1, 2010)

Did you just hear the new poll?

A Consensus of Americans (97%) agree Algore is guilty of being a crazed sex poodle.  We need to lock him away for he's certainly guilty by consensus.

There you go ladies and gentlemen, law by consensus.  It works JUST as good as SCIENCE by consensus.


----------



## Rozman (Jul 1, 2010)

97% of Scientists agree..........Al Gore knows what he is talking about

When it comes to achieving a happy ending from a massage.....allegedly !

Oooooops I may have posted this in the wrong chat group !.....


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 1, 2010)

Al Gore...........laugh my balls off. Have you ever noticed that none of the global warming religious asshat k00ks never have a problem with the fact that Gore has never had to answer a single question from somebody who wanted to challenge his assertions!!! Not a one. The curious question is............why?

The answer is easy....................

This sh!t has never been about the environment. Its only about losers who loath capitalism because they are fcukk ups and jealous of people who are successful. Thats ALL it has ever been about and the very opportunistic people of the world are getting mighty rich off the miserable jealous fcukks of our society. And they are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay miserable too. Study their posts over time............these people are insanely jealous of success and cant man up to the fact that they have made poor choices in life and are thus fcukk ups!! Opportunistic entrapreneurs feast on these assholes............miserable fcukks like Old Rocks, Edthecynic et. al.. When you got no responsbilities in life and you sit around loathing those who are successful, you become prey. Its quite that simple.

Well.........fcukk that. I have a house and Im not keen on having my electric bill get doubled in the next 4 years. Fcukk the hopelessly duped............they can pay my electric bill thanks if they care so much about the environment. Cash is fine assholes..............


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 1, 2010)

This thread definately calls for a quick check of the USMessageBoard Political forum scoreboard.......................


----------



## Father Time (Jul 1, 2010)

skookerasbil said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > How many more scientific societies and organizations would you like me to post that state unequivocally that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.
> ...



I call Poe's Law.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 9, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident&#8230;. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...


....And, it's lookin' like the (*remaining*) *3%* are *finally straggling-in*.....​


> *April 04, 2011*​
> "*A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.*
> 
> *The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature* project was launched by *physics professor Richard Muller*, a *longtime critic of government-led climate studies*, to address what he called *"the legitimate concerns"* of skeptics who believe that *global warming is exaggerated*.
> ...





 .  .  .  . ​


----------



## G.T. (Apr 9, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> ...



This story deserves a thread of its own. Try not to make it so colorful.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 9, 2011)

G.T. said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


The Mods don't appreciate that.....unless it's a pro-*Con* thread.​


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 9, 2011)

AccuWeather.com - Climate Change | Coolest March since 1994


----------



## kaz (Apr 9, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident&#8230;. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change



Ignoring that a couple decades ago the same scientists thought we were headed into...an ice age...I like the irony that you're citing a poll of people who believe in the scientific method and not opinion as the base of science...


----------



## sinister59 (Apr 9, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> This thread definately calls for a quick check of the USMessageBoard Political forum scoreboard.......................



funny , the right bitches about leaving their kid no debt , but don't care their leaving their kids no planet .


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 9, 2011)

So let me get this right.

The Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. And that big ass fu**ing giant ball of fire in the center of our solar system may affect our temperature?

Well Jesus H Christ, let me go out and buy a  NissanLeaf and hug a polar bear.


----------



## kaz (Apr 9, 2011)

bucs90 said:


> So let me get this right.
> 
> The Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. And that big ass fu**ing giant ball of fire in the center of our solar system may affect our temperature?
> 
> Well Jesus H Christ, let me go out and buy a  NissanLeaf and hug a polar bear.



I remember a Peanuts where Linus thought since it was getting colder and colder every day that it would always do that and summer would never return.  Of course he was like 5, I don't know what the left's excuse is...


----------



## sinister59 (Apr 9, 2011)

teabaggers bitch about the national debt but crap on schools don't care how stupid their kids are getting , don't care if their planet is livable . LOL its a money thing . 

we no longer have "tornado season " now its any time of the year , the sea levels rising , 

fish and birds dropping dead . bees disappearing , now the sea of japan is radioactive , rain forest going away . 
 but everything's fine ,


----------



## kaz (Apr 9, 2011)

sinister59 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > This thread definately calls for a quick check of the USMessageBoard Political forum scoreboard.......................
> ...


----------



## Rozman (Apr 9, 2011)

I think we on the right should try to keep an open mind about global warming.Yes I know the left had to scramble big time when we had some of the worst winter weather in recent memory.Then they said well we will show you so they changed it to climate change.Now when it gets to hot or too cold they have their asses covered.

I also want to bring it to the attention of my fellow righties that Superman's Father Jor-El was considered a laughing stock and total buffoon when he went before the council on Krypton and predicted the end of all life on the planet.Well they weren't laughing when Jor-El was proved right.

I will not commit to anything yet,after all Al Gore did create the Internet so he must know something.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 9, 2011)

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> ...



Is that the best you can do? Repeating that old lie again? Shows that you are a really fucking dumb individual.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 9, 2011)

Now Dr. Spencer is the fellow that ol' Rush Limpbaugh call his climate scientist. Now look at his graph on this site;

UAH Temperature Update for March, 2011: Cooler Still -0.10 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The largest analomy for this La Nina is -0.1. For the entire time from 1983 to 1987, the analomy was below -0.1. So we are in a very strong La Nina with the sun in a low TSI phase, and the best that we can do is -0.1?

Last year was a moderate El Nino, with the latter half of the year in a strong La Nina, and it still matched the super El Nino year of 1998. 

Now look again at the graph. See the natural variation superimposed over a rising temperature line. The highs continue to get higher, and the lows nowhere near as low as they used to be. The running mean from 2002 to 2007 is higher at all points than any prior mean except that of 1998.


----------



## Rozman (Apr 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...






> Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.



My God man are you suggesting we do away with as many humans as possible to correct this anomaly?.....


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 10, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Well, no s***, Sherlock. And might this have anything to do, perchance, with the fact that  as the Climategate emails made abundantly clear  unconvinced scientists were deliberately shut out of the peer-review process by the convinced ones?



*UK Telegraph*[/QUOTE]

What the survey showed is that all the toadies who the government pays to produce evidence of human caused global warming agreed that humans cause global warming.

Who ever would have thunk it?


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 10, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Typical Right Wing Response
> 
> Scientists may have numbers and stuff...but they lack "common sense"
> 
> No wonder so many apply the same term to Sarah Palin




"Scientists have numbers and stuff"

Hey, now there is compelling proof of global warming!


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 10, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> I dont think he was trying to disqualify the scientists at all. I think he was pointing out that the study is inherently flawed because they screen out scientists that disagree with the global warming agenda before factoring them into the poll.
> 
> I think you realize that. But I am not convinced you care.



You're giving him too much credit.  Like all the brethren of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming, he's too stupid to understand what the problem with his poll is.  

Ya know what's really hilarious?  The National Academy of Sciences published an obviously unscientific poll!  

How ironic is that?


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 10, 2011)

Father Time said:


> Ok prove they are suppressing ideas and don't even start with those climategate e-mails everyone takes out of context.



Prove the are frauds, but don't use any of the hard evidence that proves they are frauds?

You kill me!


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2011)

The world temperature is currently holding steady or possibly cooling, oil is not running out, the poles are not melting (in fact quite the opposite) food is not running out, in other words the world is fine and you need to think globally and act locally.  Clean up your area and the rest will follow.



Renewable Power Fail &#8211; As Usual &#8211; December 2010 « PA Pundits &#8211; International

If Al Gore Can Outgrow the Ethanol Fad, Why Can&#8217;t Conservatives?

World Climate Report » Sea Level Rise: Still Slowing Down

Peter Foster: Reason will prevail on energy | FP Comment | Financial Post


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 10, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> 97% sounds right. The other 3% work for right wing think tanks.




The 97% are all sucking on the government tit.  They get paid to produce results that justify more money for their paymasters.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Dooodeeee..... you silly ass.
> 
> Every single Scientific Society on this planet state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As does every National Academy of Science, and every major University.
> 
> Come on now, show me where all these scientists are stating that AGW is real. And not some made up list from OISM, replete with the names of scientists that were dead at the time of the creation of the list.



Scientific societies are tools of the government.  They regurgitate the agenda of the bureaucrats who pay them.  Many of their members don't even agree with the position papers they publish. 

Asking them what they think is like asking the Chief of Police what he thinks about the Mayor's position on gun control, and then calling it the opinion of all policemen.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. Science and Nature are just full of lies, correct? What fools you fellows be.



No, liberal jackasses are full of lies.  Furthermore, they don't know the slightest thing about nature.  Almost every claim they make about nature turns out to be wrong.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 10, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > And Al Gore laughed himself all the way to the bank with the millions he made off the scam.
> ...



Selling out what?  Bush had a company to sell.  What does Gore have to sell other than hot gas?


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 10, 2011)

Oddball said:


> edtheparrot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Note:  if you draw a line that averages temperatures from 1998 to 2010, the slope will be negative.   The slope of the line depends on where it starts and stops.  it's the old liberal trick of cherry picking the data.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 10, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> And the natural cycle should include cooling cycles along with the warming cycles. But for the last 100 years we are getting only neutral cycles between the warming cycles.



NCDC data has been exposed time and time again as fraudulent, just like the HadleyCRU data.  It's "homogenized."


----------



## rdean (Apr 10, 2011)

97% of Scientists agree..........Al Gore knows what he is talking about

Should be 94%.

6% disagree.  The right wing knows that 94% of all scientists are uneducated liars, right?

6% of scientists identify as Republican | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 10, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...





But..........*nobody cares*...........so whats the point??!!!!

This is still a POLITICS forum last I checked.................so what of the politics of AGW??

Crap and Tax legislation is officially DEAD. Even in lefty states like New Hampshire where RGGI legislation went down hard........246-104...........a complete blowout!! Other states will soon follow suit and nobody in DC is tallking about it. Even John Kerry referred to the topic as radioactive.

So really..........who the fcukk cares what the loaded science says now.............the point is moot, in fact, politically, the deniers PWN the day!!!







*Only 33% Think Most Americans Blame Humans for Global Warming*Thursday, March 24, 2011

President Obama, former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations, among others, argue that global warming is chiefly caused by human activity. A plurality of voters recognize that this view is held mostly by liberals rather than by all Americans. 

In fact, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters mistakenly think most Americans agree that global warming is caused primarily by human activity. Forty-six percent (46%) recognize that the view is held primarily by liberals (To see survey question wording, click here.). 

Only 33% Think Most Americans Blame Humans for Global Warming - Rasmussen Reports


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 10, 2011)




----------



## Rozman (Apr 10, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


>



Man that is one fine looking woman....Ummmm ummmm Ummmm....


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

sinister59 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > This thread definately calls for a quick check of the USMessageBoard Political forum scoreboard.......................
> ...


*BZZZT!!!!*

You're referring to *LONG-term* planning (*re: The Environment*), when.....in this *Brave New "conservative" World*....*SHORT-term ca$h-grab* ("For the Children...") is much-more-_trendy_.​


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

bucs90 said:


> So let me get this right.
> 
> The Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. And that big ass fu**ing giant ball of fire in the center of our solar system may affect our temperature?
> 
> Well Jesus H Christ, let me go out and buy a  NissanLeaf and hug a polar bear.


You'd probably be better-served waiting for the NissanLeaf 2.0 (*aquatic*-version), before you plan that trip.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

kaz said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > So let me get this right.
> ...


*We're* (pretty-much) waiting for the *Teabaggers* to recognize that science has *evolved*, since "Peanuts" was recognized as being more "user friendly" for scientific-input.​


> *BASICS OF GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE*
> 
> *Does Snow and Cold Weather Disprove Climate Change**?*


----------



## kaz (Apr 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Well, I remember the 70s and that we were being told we were headed into an ice age, no self serving link changes what we remember, kid.

But I like how you insult my intelligence and then completely fail to grasp the point on polling people who don't believe in polls, they believe in the scientific method.  Speaking of which empirical data has your lack of intelligence finger pointing in the wrong direction.


----------



## kaz (Apr 10, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > I remember a Peanuts where Linus thought since it was getting colder and colder every day that it would always do that and summer would never return.  Of course he was like 5, *I don't know what the left's excuse is*...
> ...



I like how you say Democrats are the science has evolved party, then your solutions to date are:

- Criticize gas usage while screaming every time the price increases people can't "afford" it which keeps prices low and usage up.

- Oppose the only viable large scale energy producer, nuclear power

- Propose wind and solar which we are no where near technically advance enough to make any major impact on our energy needs

- Claim sending money to poor countries will solve global warming, which is then rejected by a Democratic President and Democratic Senate and then blamed on the Republicans.

- Suffer from extreme arrogance that science understands and can accurately model the earth with existing science where we couldn't a few decades ago.

Right now your solution is that acknowledging global warming will solve it and you use it to justify socialism that has nothing to do with the environment.

And you claim you are the party of science?  Please, you're still at the level of in alchemy.

I am still evaluating the data.  I don't accept what's proven nor reject what's not disproven.  It concerns me.  But to the left all roads lead to socialism and you're suffering from premature evaluation...


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

sinister59 said:


> teabaggers bitch about the national debt but crap on schools don't care how stupid their kids are getting , don't care if their planet is livable .


Hey.....you know how the *Teabagger*-mentality has *ALWAYS* been concerned about _those-people_....



> ....*gettin' all uppity.*



The *Teabaggers* are havin' trouble-*enough* with the whole _mixing_-thing. 

The *LAST* thing they need is for their kids _falling-victim_ to that, there *thinkin'*-stuff. Their kids can learn all they *need* to know, from John Wayne & Charlton Heston flicks.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y]YouTube - 9.12 DC TEA PARTY - MARCH FOOTAGE WITH INTERVIEWS[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevga9jUC48]YouTube - 9.12 DC TEA PARTY - INTERVIEW B-ROLL[/ame]​


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

Rozman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


I thought that's what the *Teabaggers efforts* (at eliminating health-care for as-many-minorities-as-is-possible) were all-about*??*

​


----------



## kaz (Apr 10, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> Hey.....you know how the *Teabagger*-mentality has *ALWAYS* been concerned about _those-people_....​




Right, the Democratic solution.  If you can't logically debate them because your policies are illogical and don't work, demogog them .  Then claim to be the party of science...​


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 10, 2011)

kaz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



First, you remember Newsweek and Time articles, not what the scientists of that time were stating. As far as your faith in the scientific method goes, you fail to convince me of that when you quote non-scientists over scientists on a scientific subject. But back to the seventies;

Newsweek, April 28, 1975 - GLOBAL COOLING! - Digg

In 1975 the National Academy of Science (NAS) applied for funds to Establish a national climatic research program.Some journalist went to town to try and convince readers this was important stuff. The NY Times 1975: Same story as Newsweeks Cooling world. NYT says its HEATINGScroll down to where it has the subtitle Effect of Heat Waste.The NYT notes concern over CO2 levels and fears that production of energy 'heat waste' will generate so much heat as to have a major climate impact<a class="user" href="http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf&lt;/a&gt;The Newsweek article was written by staff writer: Peter Gwynne.Not written a climatologist. Nor is its conclusion  Global Cooling - based on a scientific paper published in a scientific journal.My guess it was a case of staff writer trying to fill a couple of pages in a quiet week for news and trying to make a dull paper requesting funding for climate research interesting. Possibly he thought he was doing the scientists a favour and helping nudge the politicians towards supporting them. Who knows?He attempts to build a case out of very little, taking information from where he can to build a case. And with very few references to sources. And given climate is measured as trends and conditions over periods typically of 30 years some of his examples wouldn't even be considered by serious climatologist. eg one year's winter snowfall.He doesn't even have a direct quote from one of the meteorologists and scientists he refers to in general terms.He selectively quotes from the NAS report, which in fact wasnt predicting a cooling but rather recommending the establishment of a National climatic research program. In that context statements such as A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale. are just making a case why funding should be considered for such a programme. Not predicting global disaster.The NASs reports chapter 2, was a "Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations": 1) Establish National climatic research program 2) Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man 3) Develop Climatic index monitoring program 4) Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs (GCM = Global Climate Model)5) Adoption and development of International climatic research program 6) Development of International Palaeoclimatic data networkSo the NAS report doesn't believe prediction can yet be done, and its response is to recommend more research and the development of climatic modelling. Very different from how the author misuses the NAS report to bolster his somewhat thin case.So where did the notion of cooling come from?The 1970s were an exciting time in the study of the ice ages and the realisation that there was arose and receded in cycles.The most impressive analysis remained the pioneering work of Hays, Imbrie, and Shackleton. They could even split the 20,000 year cycle into a close pair of cycles with lengths of 19,000 and 23,000 years - exactly what the best new astronomical calculations predicted. By the late 1970s, most scientists were convinced that orbital variations acted as a pacemaker to set the timing of ice ages. <a class="user" 

*Yep, I do get irate that the repition of that old saw. No, the scientists were not predicting an immediate ice age in the '70's. In fact, I read the NAS paper in the same year it was published. Now if a blue collar worker, a millwright, manages to do that, where have you been? *


----------



## kaz (Apr 10, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> I thought that's what the *Teabaggers efforts* (at eliminating health-care for as-many-minorities-as-is-possible) were all-about*??*
> 
> ​



Right, teabaggers oppose eliminating healthcare for "minorities."  Democrats on the other hand want illegal immigrants to rape and murder minorities.

You really are stupid.


----------



## kaz (Apr 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I repeated my point for you and you still aren't addressing it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 10, 2011)

kaz said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > Hey.....you know how the *Teabagger*-mentality has *ALWAYS* been concerned about _those-people_....​
> ...




*Lordy, lordy. Which party at the state level, in various states, is pushing the anti-evolution agenda? From a Geological Society of America e-mail;*

A bill is being considered in the Tennessee House of Representatives that would allow teachers to teach the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of topics such as global warming and evolution based on the assertion that they are controversial. House Bill 368 , introduced in February, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies," naming only biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning as controversial topics. The bill is the sixth anti-evolution bill introduced in state legislatures in 2011. A similar Oklahoma bill (Senate Bill 554) died in committee.​


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 10, 2011)

kaz said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > I thought that's what the *Teabaggers efforts* (at eliminating health-care for as-many-minorities-as-is-possible) were all-about*??*
> ...



I think that you post establishs whose level of stupidity is excessive.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Well, no s***, Sherlock. And might this have anything to do, perchance, with the fact that &#8211; as the Climategate emails made abundantly clear &#8211; &#8220;unconvinced&#8221; scientists were deliberately shut out of the peer-review process by the &#8220;convinced&#8221; ones?
> ...


*Whew!!!!*

You need to *CATCH-UP!!!*

*BUSHCO is GONE!!!*​


> *March 19, 2006*​
> "*Dozens of federal agencies report science but much of it is edited at the White House before it is sent to Congress and the public.* It appears climate science is edited with a heavy hand. *Drafts of climate reports were co-written by Rick Piltz for the federal Climate Change Science Program. But Piltz says his work was edited by the White House to make global warming seem less threatening.*
> 
> Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet."
> ...


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

*WHOOPS!!!!!*

Here, ya go.....you dropped your graphics......​


westwall said:


> "The world temperature is currently holding steady or possibly cooling, oil is not running out, the poles are not melting (in fact quite the opposite) food is not running out, in other words the world is fine and you need to think globally and act locally.  Clean up your area and the rest will follow."









*"OH!!! 'N.....GAWD BLESS AMEHRICA, TOO!!"*​


----------



## kaz (Apr 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Shaman said:
> ...




I'm not a Republican, I'm a libertarian.  Also, liberal indoctrination in our schools dwarfs anything conservatives are trying to do.​


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Dooodeeee..... you silly ass.
> ...


Wow. You *Teabaggers* can *always* be relied-upon to find all o' that _info_ that's _hidden_ from everyone.....else.






[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448]YouTube - THE TEA PARTY & THE CIRCUS - Final Healthcare Reform Protest[/ame]

*DUHHHHHHH!!!!*​


----------



## kaz (Apr 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Shaman said:
> ...



You don't grasp when you're being mocked, do you?


----------



## kaz (Apr 10, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


>



Which one are you?


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...


Yeah.....he was quite the little....



> .....*Businessman**!!!*


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > And the natural cycle should include cooling cycles along with the warming cycles. But for the last 100 years we are getting only neutral cycles between the warming cycles.
> ...


That's what *Porky Limbaugh* says, huh??


----------



## kaz (Apr 10, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Agreed on that.  Bush was horrible for business.  He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had zero appreciation that other people worked for the money he was spending.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

Rozman said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Wait'll she exercises the ol' turkey-neck!!


----------



## Ernie S. (Apr 10, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Can you link to where this graph came from or tell us how the mean temperature value was arrived at?


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

kaz said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Consistent, much??


----------



## Seawytch (Apr 10, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> So how this consideration is granted global warming deniers, who are equally loony and willfully ignorant; That's something I just don't understand.



Because the global warming deniers have MUCH better financial backing from the corporations that want to keep us addicted to fossil fuels. Look at who the *science deniers* are in our elected representatives then look to see how much they get *paid* by lobbyists that represent fossil fuels.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

kaz said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > Hey.....you know how the *Teabagger*-mentality has *ALWAYS* been concerned about _those-people_....​
> ...



Hey.....aren't you *supposed* to be evaluating the alchemy??

If you're havin' problems with the big-words, speak-up.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

kaz said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > I thought that's what the *Teabaggers efforts* (at eliminating health-care for as-many-minorities-as-is-possible) were all-about*??*
> ...


Ya' just....



> ....*HEARD-about-that*.....



....did ya'??

​


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Shaman said:
> ...


*LOL!!!!*

You noticed that, too, huh??


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

kaz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


ooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....great *examples*, o' that, you offer, there, *SKIPPY!!!*​


----------



## Seawytch (Apr 10, 2011)

Already posted, but ignored...

What happens when a group of climate change skeptics sets out to see what's really up with climate change?

Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming
_A UC Berkeley team's preliminary findings in a review of temperature data confirm global warming studies._

April 04, 2011|By Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times
A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

Read all about it: Global warming: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on climate change - Los Angeles Times


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 10, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Already posted, but ignored...
> 
> What happens when a group of climate change skeptics sets out to see what's really up with climate change?
> 
> ...



Did you even read the article you cited?



Inconclusive at best.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 10, 2011)

All the k00ks do is talk about the "consensus"!!!!


Hmmm...........well, then why is it that from sea to shining sea, Crap and Tax legislation is firmly in the shitter???!!!


----------



## Oddball (Apr 10, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Did you even read the article you cited?
> 
> 
> 
> Inconclusive at best.


Not only inconclusive, but even warmerist super-hoaxer Kevin Trenberth doesn't  buy their methodology.


----------



## Seawytch (Apr 10, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Inconclusive at best.



Yeah, that's what all the tobacco industry "scientists" said about studies on the effects of smoking. 

_"The church says that the Earth is flat, but I have seen the shadow on the moon and I have more faith in the shadow than in the church."_ ~ Ferdinand Magellan

Of course, his statement would be considered "inconclusive at best" wouldn't it?


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 10, 2011)

*Only 33% Think Most Americans Blame Humans for Global Warming*Thursday, March 24, 2011 

President Obama, former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations, among others, argue that global warming is chiefly caused by human activity. A plurality of voters recognize that this view is held mostly by liberals rather than by all Americans. 

In fact, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters mistakenly think most Americans agree that global warming is caused primarily by human activity. Forty-six percent (46%) recognize that the view is held primarily by liberals (To see survey question wording, click here.). 

Only 33% Think Most Americans Blame Humans for Global Warming - Rasmussen Reports


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 10, 2011)

Skooks presence so necessary on this forum...........to remind the fcukking k00ks that this is a POLITICS forum.

Nobody gives a rats ass about the "Science" anymore on this subject.

The Deniers PWN the day politically!!!!





New Hampshire repeals cap and trade | New Hampshire House of Representatives votes to repeal cap and trade law | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment


246-104 in a lefty state in New England.............


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 10, 2011)

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fiw-cap-and-trade-ruling-20110322,0,7120436.story


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 10, 2011)

*Cap And Trade, RIP?*Posted by Scott Woolley
April 5, 2011 10:13 AM


A few years ago, markets for trading pollution rights were lauded by U.S. politicians of all political persuasions. No longer.

The future of climate policy panel at Fortune Brainstorm Green. Credit: Russ Curtis

FORTUNE -- The idea of setting a firm limit on carbon dioxide emissions but letting the market decide who should do the allowable amount of polluting is an environmental policy that seems to have a little something for everyone.  Lefties like the hard limits. Righties like the flexible markets, or at least they used to -- and that change has thrown the future of cap-and-trade policies in doubt.

Cap And Trade, RIP? - Fortune Tech






*OOOooooooooooooooooooops!!!!!*


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 10, 2011)

People have woken up to the fact that computer model predictions of climate change are total BS..........and in this economy have zero stomach for their electric bills to DOUBLE. Only k00ks are ok with that.............


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > So how this consideration is granted global warming deniers, who are equally loony and willfully ignorant; That's something I just don't understand.
> ...




\

If you want to follow the money then follow the money all the way my friend.  Goldman Sachs will make over one trillion dollars if cap and trade legislation gets passed.  So will a whole bunch of other companies whose sole product is paperwork.  And who gets to pay?  You do.  Oil companies are well prepared for that eventuality as well.  ENRON (you remember them don't you?) was a major player in the Kyoto protocols.  

Over 100 billion has been spent on "research" trying to get cap and trade legislation passed, nothing has been spent on reducing pollution.  Not one thin dime.  Take a look at all the carbon tax legislation and you will see nowhere is there a requirement to reduce pollution.  No, the companies can still pollute they just have to pay for the priviledge, and, of course, they pass that cost on to you, so YOU HAVE TO PAY for it.

And who gets all that money?  Governments to pass out to their various cronies and of course the companies that shuffle the paper back and forth to show they are doing something, but no pollution is halted, no polluted areas are cleaned up, no technology is developed for the reduction of pollution, not one thing is done other than make you poorer.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 10, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Inconclusive at best.
> ...


So you're for believing still in miasma, baths and night air cause "The Flux", spontaneous generation, continental land bridges and when the ground shakes the gods are angry, eh?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 10, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> All the k00ks do is talk about the "consensus"!!!!
> 
> 
> Hmmm...........well, then why is it that from sea to shining sea, Crap and Tax legislation is firmly in the shitter???!!!


From "Titanic":

Bruce Ismay (The Owner):  "This ship CAN'T Sink!"

James Andrews (The Designer): "She's made of iron, Sir!  I assure you... she can!"


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 10, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> Wow. You *Teabaggers* can *always* be relied-upon to find all o' that _info_ that's _hidden_ from everyone.....else.




No, we just aren't the kind of suckers who automatically fall for any pablum that government bureaucrats dispense through their various propaganda organs.

Nothing could be more predictable that a bunch of organizations that are purely creatures of government would agree with a theory that gives government absolute power and vast new sources of revenue.


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Inconclusive at best.
> ...







The evidence that there is warming globally is factual, and the globe has been warming since the end of the last ice age around 11,000 years ago.  Climate however is not static and there have been may times in the recent past when the temps were warmer then they are currently.  The most recent was the Medieval Warming Period and the Roman Warming Period before that. 

 At both times global temperatures were warmer (England for example was able to compete with France in wine production, something they could never hope to do at the current time) and Romes culture bloomed during their warming period.

The claims for anthropogenic global warming on the other hand are tenuous at best.  No prediction they have ever made has actually come to fruition.  In fact quite the opposite has occured.  

Below is an exchange between two of the main players in the AGW cabal please note the highlighted remarks.  That is not science my friend, that is political advocacy.


From: Keith Briffa To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: quick note on TAR Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007 
Mike
your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan*. I am happy to pass the mantle on to someone else next time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment , having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise , again instead of actually doing some useful research ! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes

Keith
Keith
At 18:14 29/04/2007, you wrote:

Keith, just a quick note to let you know I've had a chance to read over the key bits on last millennium in the final version of the chapter, and I think you did a great job. obviously, this was one of the most (if not the most) contentious areas in the entire report, and you found a way to (in my view) convey the the science accurately, but in a way that I believe will be immune to criticisms of bias or neglect--you dealt w/ all of the controversies, but in a very even-handed and fair way. bravo! I hope you have an opportunity to relax a bit now. looking forward to buying you a beer next time we have an opportunity 
mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)


----------



## sinister59 (Apr 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> The world temperature is currently holding steady or possibly cooling, oil is not running out, the poles are not melting (in fact quite the opposite) food is not running out, in other words the world is fine and you need to think globally and act locally.  Clean up your area and the rest will follow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



we'll kill ourselves , but denie global changes the hole time , ok with me .


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2011)

sinister59 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The world temperature is currently holding steady or possibly cooling, oil is not running out, the poles are not melting (in fact quite the opposite) food is not running out, in other words the world is fine and you need to think globally and act locally.  Clean up your area and the rest will follow.
> ...






It's spelled deny and no we don't deny that at all, we are the ones saying it happens, the alarmists are the ones who seem to think the planet is static.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 10, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> That's what *Porky Limbaugh* says, huh??



No, Limbaugh never said it.

Educate yourself:

*New Scandal Erupts over NOAA Climate Data*

DailyTech - New Scandal Erupts over NOAA Climate Data

*
US ClimateGate Report: NCDC/NOAA and the Global Historical Climate Data (GHCN)*

US ClimateGate Report: NCDC/NOAA and the Global Historical Climate Data*(GHCN) « The Catastrophist 2009-2010

No Apologies


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 10, 2011)

kaz said:


> Agreed on that.  Bush was horrible for business.  He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had zero appreciation that other people worked for the money he was spending.



So Obama appreciates the working man who pays taxes?

Yeah, right.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 10, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Inconclusive at best.
> ...



Wait, I thought we were talking about the Global Warming Cultists... now we're on to flat-Earthers and cigarettes?


----------



## Seawytch (Apr 10, 2011)

Don't stop believing...just hold on to that feeling...


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 10, 2011)

Oh......and just as an aside.........every retired member of the IPCC says the organization's data is fraudulent!!!

Oh yeah.........then there the bogus hockey stick graph guy that pwned himself with e-mails...........


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. You *Teabaggers* can *always* be relied-upon to find all o' that _info_ that's _hidden_ from everyone.....else.
> ...


Yeah.....I _remember_ hearing all your _complaints_....



> ....*in the past**.*


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....so, we've got the technology to *verify* temperatures during "....the Medieval Warming Period and the Roman Warming Period before that."....but we're *still* unable to evaluate whether-or-not temperature have increased, dramatically, since the early-days of The Industrial Revolution.

That makes sense, to you, huh?????


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > That's what *Porky Limbaugh* says, huh??
> ...



You *Teabaggers* *need* to do something about your *masochistic-tendencies*.

In the *mean-time*......



> ....the *ASS-KICKIN' CONTINUES**!!!!*



Her ya' go. You're gonna need this......


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 10, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Shaman said:
> ...







Thats right...........the science is settled!!!!!!!



*Collapse of Chicago Climate Exchange Means a Strategy Shift on Global Warming Curbs*

By Ed Barnes

Published November 09, 2011 

The closing this week of the Chicago Climate Exchange, which was envisioned to be the key player in the trillion-dollar "cap and trade" market, *was the final nail in the coffin of the Obama administration's effort to pass the controversial program meant to combat global warming.*
*"It is dead for the foreseeable future," said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and the Environment with the Competitive Energy Institute, which had fought the measure. 

That assessment was echoed by environmentalists as well*. 



yuk..........yuk..................


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 10, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> You *Teabaggers* *need* to do something about your *masochistic-tendencies*.



That's your idea of an effective response?



Mr. Shaman said:


> In the *mean-time*......
> 
> 
> 
> > ....the *ASS-KICKIN' CONTINUES**!!!!*



Quoting a bunch of hacks who have a vested interest in promoting the global warming scam proves exactly what?

I've read the climategate emails for myself, and the computer code with comments in it that state explicitely the data is being massaged to produce the desired result.

I'm not some drone who needs an official propaganda organ to tell me what to think.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 10, 2011)

Hey West bro..........do the k00ks put the big old pumpkin on the tee for us every time or what????


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

G.T. said:


> This story deserves a thread of its own. Try not to make it so colorful.


See.....this is what happens.

When *"conservatives"* are gettin' their asses handed to them(selves), the *Mods* hustle the thread *outta* Politics, and bury it somewhere (else), to help *"conservatives"* maintain their political/delusional "purity".​


----------



## rdean (Apr 10, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> > teabaggers bitch about the national debt but crap on schools don't care how stupid their kids are getting , don't care if their planet is livable .
> ...



My favorite comment from right wingers when questioned repeated over and over again, "I can't think of anything right off the bat".  Perhaps they've lost the ability to think?  Their hatred of the black guy in the WHITE House has overwhelmed their tiny minds.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

rdean said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > sinister59 said:
> ...


They *are AMUSING*, after being backed-into-a-corner.....


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 10, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > You *Teabaggers* *need* to do something about your *masochistic-tendencies*.
> ...



*My, my, another dumb ass.*
Muller's own words, not what someone else thought he said.

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/M..._31_March_2011

Based on the preliminary work we have done, I believe that the systematic biases that are
the cause for most concern can be adequately handled by data analysis techniques. The
world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature
trends.
.................................................. .................................................. ..........................

Prior groups at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK (HadCRU) estimate about a 1.2 degree C
land temperature rise from the early 1900s to the present. This 1.2 degree rise is what we
call global warming. Their work is excellent, and the Berkeley Earth project strives to
build on it.
.................................................. .................................................. ........................

In our preliminary analysis of these stations, we found a warming trend that is shown in
the figure. It is very similar to that reported by the prior groups: a rise of about 0.7
degrees C since 1957. (Please keep in mind that the Berkeley Earth curve, in black, does
not include adjustments designed to eliminate systematic bias.)
.................................................. .................................................. .......................

In fact, in our preliminary analysis the good stations report more warming in the U.S.
than the poor stations by 0.009 ± 0.009 degrees per decade, opposite to what might be
expected, but also consistent with zero. We are currently checking these results and
performing the calculation in several different ways. But we are consistently finding that
there is no enhancement of global warming trends due to the inclusion of the poorly
ranked US stations.
.................................................. .................................................. ..........................

Despite potential biases in the data, methods of analysis can be used to reduce bias effects
well enough to enable us to measure long-term Earth temperature changes. Data integrity
is adequate. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)

Financial Support 
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study has received a total of $623,087 in financial support from:

The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($20,000) 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ($188,587) 
William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000) 
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000) 
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) 
The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000) 
We have also received funding from a number of private individuals, totaling $14,500.

All donations were provided as unrestricted educational grants, which means the donor organizations have no say over how we conduct the research or what we publish


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2011)

And yet there's 85 feet of ice that has accumulated in 50 years.  Amazing how its been able to do that when the planet is supposedly melting.


----------



## Zander (Apr 10, 2011)

Al Gore is right? That's a lot of shit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 11, 2011)

Hey Zander, senile old buddy, your teabaggers called an astrophysicist to testify concerning what they claimed was bad data and unwarrented conclusions concerning the temperature rise. Even after the Koch Brothers had funded the research to the tune of $150,000, Dr. Muller stated that the data proviced by NOAA and NASA, as well as other groups was excellant, and that, by the work he had done so far, the conclusions were spot on. 

In other words, yes, Al Gore's interpretations of what the scientists have said concerning climate was right.


----------



## Zander (Apr 11, 2011)

The earth is warming!!
The earth is warming!!!







Oh, wait....it's not. 

The earth is cooling!! 
The earth is cooling!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 11, 2011)

Zander said:


> The earth is warming!!
> The earth is warming!!!
> 
> 
> ...


And how.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 15, 2011)

Zander said:


> The earth is warming!!
> The earth is warming!!!
> 
> 
> ...





> For years, scientists have been *predicting* the Sun would by around 2012 move into solar maximum, a period of intense flares and sunspot activity, but lately a curious calm has suggested quite the opposite.



Scientists predict rare 'hibernation' of sunspots


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 15, 2011)

You people don't know?
All sciientists are liberals.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 15, 2011)

Not only liberal, but they don't understand science as well as an obese junkie on the radio.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Not only liberal, but they don't* understand science as well as an obese junkie on the radio.*


They believe that obese junkie because like him they are too stupid to know that not one single molecule of CO2 in the entire universe ever came from H2O!!! 

April 3, 2007
RUSH:  *Mark my brilliant words on this.*  That's how this stuff starts.  Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant?  Is it an air pollutant?  Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant.  *The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor. *


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Not only liberal, but they don't understand science as well as an obese junkie on the radio.



So tell me more about the disappearing sunspots


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Not only liberal, but they don't understand science as well as an obese junkie on the radio.



Ditto


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 15, 2011)

Did the disappearing sunspot TSI "hide the decline"?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 15, 2011)

Yeah, that 71 year old fishing guide I use in Apalachicola that was born and raised on the bay down there is a liberal for stating the fact that the river water is warming.
And the oyster beds that thrive in cool water in the winter there are dying off due to cooler temperatures.
And the speckled trout that go up the river later each year and return earlier each year because the water is cooling later in the fall and warming earlier each spring, they are all liberals.
And when one puts his hand behind an exhaust pipe on an automobile when it is running and feels heat, that has no effect on the earth with a billion running each day.
Yes sir, only a liberal would claim the water has warmed and that man and his pollution has caused it. 
No one with any sense would claim otherwise. Rush Limbaugh can not be disputed.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 15, 2011)

Before recent Global Warming.

Any Questions?


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Yeah, that 71 year old fishing guide I use in Apalachicola that was born and raised on the bay down there is a liberal for stating the fact that the river water is warming.
> And the oyster beds that thrive in cool water in the winter there are dying off due to cooler temperatures.
> And the speckled trout that go up the river later each year and return earlier each year because the water is cooling later in the fall and warming earlier each spring, they are all liberals.
> And when one puts his hand behind an exhaust pipe on an automobile when it is running and feels heat, that has no effect on the earth with a billion running each day.
> ...








Yessir, your short life has sure been gifted with a great time to be alive.   Try fishing in that little pond back around 1800, or how about 1700, or maybe 1600, or how about all the way back to 1400 when the last cooling period began.   You see dear sir, the world moves much slower then you do.  You are to the Earth like a fruit fly is to you.  You live years while the fruit fly lives just a day.  

You are applying the observations of the fruit fly to the workings of the multi billion year old Earth.   And you can't see the issue at all can you?  This is not about liberal or conservative.  Try taking a geology class someday.  Here's a hint of the scale of time we are talking about.

Imagine a volcanic eruption.  It is large and fills a void in the Earth that is 500 cubic meters in volumne.  Guess how long it takes for that magma to cool down........the answer is the magma cools at the rate of one degree per million years.  Does that give you an idea of how insignificant your miniscule lifespan is?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 15, 2011)

Well, we sure get an idea of how miniscule ol' Walleyes intellect is. We are not speaking of geological time periods, we are speaking of changes in human lifespans that will shorten many of the lifespans of the people that are today young.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 15, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > You *Teabaggers* *need* to do something about your *masochistic-tendencies*.
> ...



Naw, you are just a braindead ditto head that has never read anything but talking points.


----------



## daveman (Jun 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, we sure get an idea of how miniscule ol' Walleyes intellect is. We are not speaking of geological time periods, we are speaking of changes in human lifespans that will shorten many of the lifespans of the people that are today young.



Nonsense.  What will kill young people today is the AGW cult passing their faith-based initiatives to cripple the economies of the Western world, drastically increase the price of energy, making people starve, freeze, and die of heat stroke.  

But as I've shown, the Green Movement hates humanity and wants most everyone (except for themselves, of course,) dead.


----------



## daveman (Jun 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Shaman said:
> ...


Ridiculous.  You have no proof that all he sees is your posts.


----------



## whitehall (Jun 15, 2011)

97% of academic "scientists" would say that Bozo the clown knows what he is talking about if their grants depended on it. It's the sun stupid. Gore is an angry defeated politician and a sexual pervert with no background in science.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 16, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Yeah, that 71 year old fishing guide I use in Apalachicola that was born and raised on the bay down there is a liberal for stating the fact that the river water is warming.
> And the oyster beds that thrive in cool water in the winter there are dying off due to cooler temperatures.
> And the speckled trout that go up the river later each year and return earlier each year because the water is cooling later in the fall and warming earlier each spring, they are all liberals.
> And when one puts his hand behind an exhaust pipe on an automobile when it is running and feels heat, that has no effect on the earth with a billion running each day.
> ...



Great stories, Gadawg.  Now tell us why anyone should believe them?


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 16, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
> 
> Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
> 
> ...



Honestly, it really doesn't matter what the cause is, it is happening.  Temperatures are getting warmer and we're not going to be able to prevent it.  This idea that we will just stop emitting greenhouse gasses is a joke.  Even if we could reduce our emissions, we cannot completely cut back to a level that will reduce these gases.  On the other hand, if these warmer temperatures are being caused by other factors, then we still won't be able to change anything.

What we will need to do is plan for the consequences of rising temperatures.  There has been much discussion as to how this will actually increase precipitation but decrease our snowpacks.  We have actually seen some of this the last few years and need to watch closely to determine if this is going to become a normal trend.  With increased winter snowfalls and complete spring thaws, we are seeing much greater flooding than in the past.  I don't think anyone can say that this is yet a pattern, but if it becomes one, then we better think of finding ways to retain this water for use during the rest of the year and also to reduce flooding.

Bottom line is that we are not going back to the days of horse and buggies, even if it means that we are wreaking havoc on the planet, so we better learn to adjust and find ways to deal with the consequences.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 16, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, that 71 year old fishing guide I use in Apalachicola that was born and raised on the bay down there is a liberal for stating the fact that the river water is warming.
> ...



Because most likely they are true.  You are like Sgt. Schultz on Hogan's Hero's.  "I see nothing".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8105U1WY9ro]YouTube - &#x202a;iseenothing.avi&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------

