Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No one is going to burn down the US economy in order to reduce our carbon emissions. No one is going to shut down coal powered plants till replacement sources are up and running. To think otherwise is to buy into some REALLY stupid, fossil fuel industry propaganda.
Could it be that you can't answer the question either? How do I "look up" the accuracy of global temperature measurements in the 1880s? How stupid do you think we are?Is there some reason you can't look that information up? Could it be that you really have no interest in it?
No one is going to burn down the US economy in order to reduce our carbon emissions. No one is going to shut down coal powered plants till replacement sources are up and running. To think otherwise is to buy into some REALLY stupid, fossil fuel industry propaganda.
You live in a house in an nice neighborhood. You are afraid a would be robber might rob your house casing the nice neighborhood. In order to make the area less attractive to would be robbers, leading from the front, you burn down half your house, hoping your neighbors will too.
You live in a house in an nice neighborhood. You are afraid a would be robber might rob your house casing the nice neighborhood. In order to make the area less attractive to would be robbers, leading from the front, you burn down half your house, hoping your neighbors will too.
A fine rant, but what does it have to do with anything on this topic? You seem to camped out in some kind of delusional lalaland, one that only admits right wing fruitloops.
Back in reality, the utilities themselves are saying the program isn't a big deal. Do you know something they don't? That is, what's the source of your hysterical sky-is-falling pronouncements? And given that the sky didn't fall the last dozen times your side tried similar alarmism, why should anybody give any heed to your latest meltdown?
I notice you avoided answering the question. Accurate global temperature data in the 1880s came from......?Could it be that you can't answer the question either? How do I "look up" the accuracy of global temperature measurements in the 1880s? How stupid do you think we are?Is there some reason you can't look that information up? Could it be that you really have no interest in it?
I'll answer that last question.
REALLY, REALLY STUPID
AND INCREDIBLY IGNORANT TO BOOT
You don't understand the science involved in this issue so you automatically distrust it. You ask for an explanation of how certain scientific data was determined but you obviously don't want to learn any facts that would upset your denier cult delusions that are already set in stone in what passes for your mind. You apparently have no idea how to "look up" any information on the internet. You project your own ignorance and confusion onto scientists who are far more intelligent, educated, and knowledgeable in the fields of climate science than you will ever be. Really, really stupid.
It is amazing the love you have for the right wing. Truly!!!! It must be a mess being you having to use right wing all the time. Hey, don't turn around it might be a right winger. hahahaahahahahaahhaha, you piece of work!
Accurate global temperature data in the 1880s came from......?
Totally missed: What percentage of Americans don't give a shit about Global Whatever and simply hang up on pollsters or, if accosted in person, knock them to the ground and piss on them?
I've seen bullshit before. Who do you think you're kidding. You know you're full of shit. Tree rings, corals and ice cores to measure a 1.5 degree temperature range? No links to that? Aw, what a let down. I could use a good laugh.Accurate global temperature data in the 1880s came from......?
Thermometers and proxy measurements such as tree rings, corals and ice cores.
No, you don't get more. If we link to the details, you'll claim the source is part of the great socialist conspiracy. If we laboriously spend hours typing it out, you'll find a bullshit excuse to handwave it away. You think we haven't seen the denier song-and-dance a hundred times before?
You think tree rings can accurately measure temperature and you think the world is laughing at me?No matter. We don't have to do a thing. The fact that a few bitter cranks are denying the actual evidence means nothing. In the real world, the burden of proof is on the deniers now. You keep refusing to meet that burden of proof. Hence, you will continue to be irrelevant, and the world will continue laughing at you.
I've seen bullshit before. Who do you think you're kidding. You know you're full of shit. Tree rings, corals and ice cores to measure a 1.5 degree temperature range? No links to that? Aw, what a let down. I could use a good laugh.Accurate global temperature data in the 1880s came from......?
Thermometers and proxy measurements such as tree rings, corals and ice cores.
No, you don't get more. If we link to the details, you'll claim the source is part of the great socialist conspiracy. If we laboriously spend hours typing it out, you'll find a bullshit excuse to handwave it away. You think we haven't seen the denier song-and-dance a hundred times before?
You think tree rings can accurately measure temperature and you think the world is laughing at me?No matter. We don't have to do a thing. The fact that a few bitter cranks are denying the actual evidence means nothing. In the real world, the burden of proof is on the deniers now. You keep refusing to meet that burden of proof. Hence, you will continue to be irrelevant, and the world will continue laughing at you.
My climate model predicts global warming concerns as being directly proportional to the amount of available public funding.Trying to determine global temperatures pre-1900s is a scientific wild ass guess (SWAG) at best. Were the thermometers controlled by a reliable calibration system? Do indirect methods of estimating historical temperatures allow for massaging the data? How do you "average" all this data together to come up with an average temperatures for the world for a specific historical year! You do a whole lot of SWAGing, that's what you do. Can science come up with reasonable historical temperatures? yes, but the more variables that go into the SWAG the larger the range of possible error.
Whooooooooooosh.Good news. We need to know more. That does absolutely nothing to support your contention. Increased research funding is not associated with increased perceived warming.
The planet has been warming and will continue to warm. Suggesting otherwise is... well... stupid.
GOP warms to climate change as voters embrace global warming believers | WashingtonExaminer.com
GOP WARMS TO CLIMATE CHANGE AS VOTERS EMBRACE GLOBAL WARMING BELIEVERS
BY PAUL BEDARD | MAY 30, 2014 | 3:25 PM
Breaking from party orthodoxy, a majority of Republican voters now accept climate change, sparking a drive inside the GOP to find a middle ground to help candidates finesse the issue without sounding out of touch or in the tank for President Obama and Al Gore.
See link for remainder of article.
The majority view - as do majority views with overwhelming supporting evidence - grows. You folks will eventually be left standing on the uttermost fringes as your former compatriots creep towards the sensible center.
I would have thought that, judging by the amt of denier posts in this sub-forum, that 96% of the GOP were deniers 
