Arctic ice thins dramatically

[Uncensored2008]

chris blames bush for the last ice age

Well, that's what MSNBC reported, so it must be true. Dubya caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, too!

 

[RollingThunder]

On a related note, which is clear to everyone...

...you're another clueless retard. You make that very clear.

Those who want to push for global warming legislation hate the way the world is now. They fear the private sector and the rights of individuals to choose for themselves. They've decided in their hearts, as the little control freaks they are, that they must proscribe for them, the 'correct' way to live and exist and think. It is an excuse.

LOLOLOLOL....rightwingnut insanity and projection.

The world scientific community is practically unanimous in warning the world that we're facing a very serious climate crisis that we have created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Those who understand the science are trying to get the world to deal with the problem by limiting carbon emissions but those with a vested financial interest in selling fossil fuels are trying to confuse the public about the reality and dangers of AGW in order to delay any restrictions on carbon emissions because those restrictions or taxes would also curtail the profit stream from the sale of fossil fuels. You're one of the scientifically ignorant dupes and stooges of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

 

[Liability]

I think my hair is starting to thin, too.

Can I blame Man Made Global Warming?

There may be precedent.

algore is really going fucking bald.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On a related note, which is clear to everyone...

...you're another clueless retard. You make that very clear.

Those who want to push for global warming legislation hate the way the world is now. They fear the private sector and the rights of individuals to choose for themselves. They've decided in their hearts, as the little control freaks they are, that they must proscribe for them, the 'correct' way to live and exist and think. It is an excuse.

LOLOLOLOL....rightwingnut insanity and projection.

The world scientific community is practically unanimous in warning the world that we're facing a very serious climate crisis that we have created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Those who understand the science are trying to get the world to deal with the problem by limiting carbon emissions but those with a vested financial interest in selling fossil fuels are trying to confuse the public about the reality and dangers of AGW in order to delay any restrictions on carbon emissions because those restrictions or taxes would also curtail the profit stream from the sale of fossil fuels. You're one of the scientifically ignorant dupes and stooges of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

Fossil fuels? Have you heard of the US Space Program? The latest discovery of lakes of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan has totally demolished the cute notion that you need dead dinosaurs to produce hydrocarbons

 

[Oddball]

On a related note, which is clear to everyone...

...you're another clueless retard. You make that very clear.

Those who want to push for global warming legislation hate the way the world is now. They fear the private sector and the rights of individuals to choose for themselves. They've decided in their hearts, as the little control freaks they are, that they must proscribe for them, the 'correct' way to live and exist and think. It is an excuse.

LOLOLOLOL....rightwingnut insanity and projection.

The world scientific community is practically unanimous in warning the world that we're facing a very serious climate crisis that we have created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Those who understand the science are trying to get the world to deal with the problem by limiting carbon emissions but those with a vested financial interest in selling fossil fuels are trying to confuse the public about the reality and dangers of AGW in order to delay any restrictions on carbon emissions because those restrictions or taxes would also curtail the profit stream from the sale of fossil fuels. You're one of the scientifically ignorant dupes and stooges of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

Fossil fuels? Have you heard of the US Space Program? The latest discovery of lakes of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan has totally demolished the cute notion that you need dead dinosaurs to produce hydrocarbons

Oh, that "science" thingy strikes again!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...you're another clueless retard. You make that very clear.




LOLOLOLOL....rightwingnut insanity and projection.

The world scientific community is practically unanimous in warning the world that we're facing a very serious climate crisis that we have created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Those who understand the science are trying to get the world to deal with the problem by limiting carbon emissions but those with a vested financial interest in selling fossil fuels are trying to confuse the public about the reality and dangers of AGW in order to delay any restrictions on carbon emissions because those restrictions or taxes would also curtail the profit stream from the sale of fossil fuels. You're one of the scientifically ignorant dupes and stooges of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

Fossil fuels? Have you heard of the US Space Program? The latest discovery of lakes of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan has totally demolished the cute notion that you need dead dinosaurs to produce hydrocarbons

Oh, that "science" thingy strikes again!

Pos Rep your way for being one of the 6 percenters

 

[Liability]

Somebody is forgetting the dead dinosaurs of Titan....

 

[RollingThunder]

On a related note, which is clear to everyone...

...you're another clueless retard. You make that very clear.

Those who want to push for global warming legislation hate the way the world is now. They fear the private sector and the rights of individuals to choose for themselves. They've decided in their hearts, as the little control freaks they are, that they must proscribe for them, the 'correct' way to live and exist and think. It is an excuse.

LOLOLOLOL....rightwingnut insanity and projection.

The world scientific community is practically unanimous in warning the world that we're facing a very serious climate crisis that we have created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Those who understand the science are trying to get the world to deal with the problem by limiting carbon emissions but those with a vested financial interest in selling fossil fuels are trying to confuse the public about the reality and dangers of AGW in order to delay any restrictions on carbon emissions because those restrictions or taxes would also curtail the profit stream from the sale of fossil fuels. You're one of the scientifically ignorant dupes and stooges of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

Fossil fuels? Have you heard of the US Space Program? The latest discovery of lakes of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan has totally demolished the cute notion that you need dead dinosaurs to produce hydrocarbons

And because you're so ignorant about science, someone has fooled you into thinking that this has any significance. Hydrocarbons are very common in the universe but you denier cult nutjobs don't even know what 'hydrocarbon' means. The fossil fuels we use here on Earth are in fact the decomposed remnants of ancient biological materials from plants.

Formation of Petroleum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Petroleum is a fossil fuel derived from ancient fossilized organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae.[19] Vast quantities of these remains settled to a sea or lake bottoms, mixing with sediments and being buried under anoxic conditions. As further layers settled to the sea or lake bed, intense heat and pressure built up in the lower regions. This process caused the organic matter to change, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons via a process known as catagenesis. Formation of petroleum occurs from hydrocarbon pyrolysis in a variety of mostly endothermic reactions at high temperature and/or pressure.[20]

There were certain warm nutrient-rich environments such as the Gulf of Mexico and the ancient Tethys Sea where the large amounts of organic material falling to the ocean floor exceeded the rate at which it could decompose. This resulted in large masses of organic material being buried under subsequent deposits such as shale formed from mud. This massive organic deposit later became heated and transformed under pressure into oil.[21]

Geologists often refer to the temperature range in which oil forms as an "oil window"[22]—below the minimum temperature oil remains trapped in the form of kerogen, and above the maximum temperature the oil is converted to natural gas through the process of thermal cracking. Sometimes, oil formed at extreme depths may migrate and become trapped at a much shallower level. The Athabasca Oil Sands is one example of this.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[RollingThunder]

LOLOLOL....I see you're once again demonstrating that you're a clueless retard with a cartoon mentality.

Since you like cartoons so much, here's one that captures the position you and the other denier cultists take on AGW.

 

[skookerasbil]

LAUGH MY BALLS OFF.................

According to RealClearScience today..................

The extinction nuts use phoney math models!!!! What a shocker!!!!

Estimates of extinction due to habitat loss use the wrong math

 

[westwall]

...you're another clueless retard. You make that very clear.




LOLOLOLOL....rightwingnut insanity and projection.

The world scientific community is practically unanimous in warning the world that we're facing a very serious climate crisis that we have created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Those who understand the science are trying to get the world to deal with the problem by limiting carbon emissions but those with a vested financial interest in selling fossil fuels are trying to confuse the public about the reality and dangers of AGW in order to delay any restrictions on carbon emissions because those restrictions or taxes would also curtail the profit stream from the sale of fossil fuels. You're one of the scientifically ignorant dupes and stooges of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

Fossil fuels? Have you heard of the US Space Program? The latest discovery of lakes of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan has totally demolished the cute notion that you need dead dinosaurs to produce hydrocarbons

And because you're so ignorant about science, someone has fooled you into thinking that this has any significance. Hydrocarbons are very common in the universe but you denier cult nutjobs don't even know what 'hydrocarbon' means. The fossil fuels we use here on Earth are in fact the decomposed remnants of ancient biological materials from plants.

Formation of Petroleum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Petroleum is a fossil fuel derived from ancient fossilized organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae.[19] Vast quantities of these remains settled to a sea or lake bottoms, mixing with sediments and being buried under anoxic conditions. As further layers settled to the sea or lake bed, intense heat and pressure built up in the lower regions. This process caused the organic matter to change, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons via a process known as catagenesis. Formation of petroleum occurs from hydrocarbon pyrolysis in a variety of mostly endothermic reactions at high temperature and/or pressure.[20]

There were certain warm nutrient-rich environments such as the Gulf of Mexico and the ancient Tethys Sea where the large amounts of organic material falling to the ocean floor exceeded the rate at which it could decompose. This resulted in large masses of organic material being buried under subsequent deposits such as shale formed from mud. This massive organic deposit later became heated and transformed under pressure into oil.[21]

Geologists often refer to the temperature range in which oil forms as an "oil window"[22]—below the minimum temperature oil remains trapped in the form of kerogen, and above the maximum temperature the oil is converted to natural gas through the process of thermal cracking. Sometimes, oil formed at extreme depths may migrate and become trapped at a much shallower level. The Athabasca Oil Sands is one example of this.

In the case of coal you are of course correct. However there is a counter theory that oil is abiotic and a well was drilled in the middle of a continental craton to find out if the theory held water. For those who don't know they drilled through solid rock and did indeed find a small amount of oil....in the middle of an igneous body....something the current theory of oil formation says is impossible.

The discovery of methane and other hydrocarbons on planetary bodies reinforces the need to rethink the oil formation theories.

 

[westwall]

LAUGH MY BALLS OFF.................

According to RealClearScience today..................

The extinction nuts use phoney math models!!!! What a shocker!!!!

Estimates of extinction due to habitat loss use the wrong math

Well you know math is not a strong point of the alarmist nutballs. Simple math seems to be beyond their ability. Must be a genetic thing.

 

[RollingThunder]

LAUGH MY BALLS OFF.................

According to RealClearScience today..................

The extinction nuts use phoney math models!!!! What a shocker!!!!

Estimates of extinction due to habitat loss use the wrong math

In the first place, the topic of this thread is the dramatic thinning of the Arctic ice so what does this post of yours have to do with that, kooker?

In the second place, you're citing an article (which you obviously didn't actually read) about one study (which you also obviously didn't actually read) of extinction rates and the article itself says:

Does that mean we can all breathe a sigh of relief? Not really. Although habitat loss may not drive species to extinction as quickly as we once thought, it can certainly still do so. And, although the concept of extinction debt isn't supported by the mismatch of estimated and actual extinction rates, it may still be a very real phenomenon. As the authors put it, "There is no doubt whatsoever that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment1 has correctly identified habitat loss as the primary threat to conserving the Earth’s biodiversity, and the sixth mass extinction might already be upon us or imminent."


The study was published in Nature and here's part of an article about the study in Nature News that indicates that some scientists working in that field disagree with the conclusions of the study.

Hidden assumption hypes species-loss predictions
(excerpts)

But Stuart Pimm, a conservation ecologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, says that Hubbell and He's paper is simply wrong. The authors, he says, make an inexcusable mistake: categorically claiming that all extinction rates using species–area relationships are overestimates, even though some papers using the method have been accurate.

In 1995, Pimm wrote a paper estimating extinction rates of birds in eastern North America due to historical deforestation3. Pimm says their method predicted that 4.5 species would be lost — and today, four have been lost and one teeters on the edge of extinction. "Our paper nailed the number on the head," he says. Hubbell and He overlooked dozens of other examples of studies that have successfully used species–area curves to predict extinction rates, he says.

Research using species–area relationships did result in overestimates 30 years ago, but many contemporary attempts vary the method to achieve accurate predictions, says Pimm. For example, researchers can look at how many species would survive in an area after it becomes isolated — rather than how many species occur in an intact area, as Hubbell and He do. The predictions of such papers show a very close calibration with what is observed, he says. "There's not one species–area curve; there are lots of species–area curves," Pimm adds.


And finally.....so what? SO FUCKING WHAT, YOU SILLY RETARD??? The Earth is still warming rapidly, climate patterns are still changing, sea levels are still rising, Arctic ice is still thinning, ice caps and glaciers are still melting rapidly and the human driven 6th mass extinction still continues although perhaps not quite so fast as some previous estimates. It is all still happening.

 

[RollingThunder]

Fossil fuels? Have you heard of the US Space Program? The latest discovery of lakes of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan has totally demolished the cute notion that you need dead dinosaurs to produce hydrocarbons

And because you're so ignorant about science, someone has fooled you into thinking that this has any significance. Hydrocarbons are very common in the universe but you denier cult nutjobs don't even know what 'hydrocarbon' means. The fossil fuels we use here on Earth are in fact the decomposed remnants of ancient biological materials from plants.

Formation of Petroleum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Petroleum is a fossil fuel derived from ancient fossilized organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae.[19] Vast quantities of these remains settled to a sea or lake bottoms, mixing with sediments and being buried under anoxic conditions. As further layers settled to the sea or lake bed, intense heat and pressure built up in the lower regions. This process caused the organic matter to change, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons via a process known as catagenesis. Formation of petroleum occurs from hydrocarbon pyrolysis in a variety of mostly endothermic reactions at high temperature and/or pressure.[20]

There were certain warm nutrient-rich environments such as the Gulf of Mexico and the ancient Tethys Sea where the large amounts of organic material falling to the ocean floor exceeded the rate at which it could decompose. This resulted in large masses of organic material being buried under subsequent deposits such as shale formed from mud. This massive organic deposit later became heated and transformed under pressure into oil.[21]

Geologists often refer to the temperature range in which oil forms as an "oil window"[22]—below the minimum temperature oil remains trapped in the form of kerogen, and above the maximum temperature the oil is converted to natural gas through the process of thermal cracking. Sometimes, oil formed at extreme depths may migrate and become trapped at a much shallower level. The Athabasca Oil Sands is one example of this.

In the case of coal you are of course correct. However there is a counter theory that oil is abiotic and a well was drilled in the middle of a continental craton to find out if the theory held water. For those who don't know they drilled through solid rock and did indeed find a small amount of oil....in the middle of an igneous body....something the current theory of oil formation says is impossible.

The discovery of methane and other hydrocarbons on planetary bodies reinforces the need to rethink the oil formation theories.

LOLOLOLOL....we can always count on you, walleyedretard, to find some discredited theory to promote.

Abiogenic petroleum origin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abiogenic petroleum origin is a discredited hypothesis that was proposed as an alternative to theory of biological petroleum origin. It was relatively popular in the past, but it went largely forgotten at the end of the 20th century after it failed to predict the location of new wells.[1]

Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by many geologists in the former Soviet Union, it allegedly fell out of favor because it never made any useful prediction for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] Most geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported.[1] The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds).[1]

Abiogenic origin hypothesis
The thermodynamic synthesis routes necessary to carry abiogenic source material into subsurface oil are not established, observation of organic markers in kerogen and oil is not explained, and no oil deposits have been located by this hypothesis.[23]

 

[skookerasbil]

LAUGH MY BALLS OFF.................

According to RealClearScience today..................

The extinction nuts use phoney math models!!!! What a shocker!!!!

Estimates of extinction due to habitat loss use the wrong math

And finally.....so what? SO FUCKING WHAT, YOU SILLY RETARD??? The Earth is still warming rapidly, climate patterns are still changing, sea levels are still rising, Arctic ice is still thinning, ice caps and glaciers are still melting rapidly and the human driven 6th mass extinction still continues although perhaps not quite so fast as some previous estimates. It is all still happening.

Then why is your side getting decimated??

http://www.good.is/post/cap-and-trade-is-dead-now-what/


Like I said s0n...............the k00ks dont get it. #'s are gay...........its like group navel contemplation.

 

[westwall]

And because you're so ignorant about science, someone has fooled you into thinking that this has any significance. Hydrocarbons are very common in the universe but you denier cult nutjobs don't even know what 'hydrocarbon' means. The fossil fuels we use here on Earth are in fact the decomposed remnants of ancient biological materials from plants.

Formation of Petroleum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Petroleum is a fossil fuel derived from ancient fossilized organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae.[19] Vast quantities of these remains settled to a sea or lake bottoms, mixing with sediments and being buried under anoxic conditions. As further layers settled to the sea or lake bed, intense heat and pressure built up in the lower regions. This process caused the organic matter to change, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons via a process known as catagenesis. Formation of petroleum occurs from hydrocarbon pyrolysis in a variety of mostly endothermic reactions at high temperature and/or pressure.[20]

There were certain warm nutrient-rich environments such as the Gulf of Mexico and the ancient Tethys Sea where the large amounts of organic material falling to the ocean floor exceeded the rate at which it could decompose. This resulted in large masses of organic material being buried under subsequent deposits such as shale formed from mud. This massive organic deposit later became heated and transformed under pressure into oil.[21]

Geologists often refer to the temperature range in which oil forms as an "oil window"[22]—below the minimum temperature oil remains trapped in the form of kerogen, and above the maximum temperature the oil is converted to natural gas through the process of thermal cracking. Sometimes, oil formed at extreme depths may migrate and become trapped at a much shallower level. The Athabasca Oil Sands is one example of this.

In the case of coal you are of course correct. However there is a counter theory that oil is abiotic and a well was drilled in the middle of a continental craton to find out if the theory held water. For those who don't know they drilled through solid rock and did indeed find a small amount of oil....in the middle of an igneous body....something the current theory of oil formation says is impossible.

The discovery of methane and other hydrocarbons on planetary bodies reinforces the need to rethink the oil formation theories.

LOLOLOLOL....we can always count on you, walleyedretard, to find some discredited theory to promote.

Abiogenic petroleum origin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abiogenic petroleum origin is a discredited hypothesis that was proposed as an alternative to theory of biological petroleum origin. It was relatively popular in the past, but it went largely forgotten at the end of the 20th century after it failed to predict the location of new wells.[1]

Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by many geologists in the former Soviet Union, it allegedly fell out of favor because it never made any useful prediction for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] Most geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported.[1] The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds).[1]

Abiogenic origin hypothesis
The thermodynamic synthesis routes necessary to carry abiogenic source material into subsurface oil are not established, observation of organic markers in kerogen and oil is not explained, and no oil deposits have been located by this hypothesis.[23]

Yes, please note the reason for it falling out of disfavor...they weren't able to figure out a way to predict where large oil deposits could be found. They found oil, just not enough. That would be an interesting area of research though, to see if technology could be developed that would allow you to predict where oil could be found. Instead you clowns divert money to studying whale farts.

 

[RollingThunder]

In the case of coal you are of course correct. However there is a counter theory that oil is abiotic and a well was drilled in the middle of a continental craton to find out if the theory held water. For those who don't know they drilled through solid rock and did indeed find a small amount of oil....in the middle of an igneous body....something the current theory of oil formation says is impossible.

The discovery of methane and other hydrocarbons on planetary bodies reinforces the need to rethink the oil formation theories.

LOLOLOLOL....we can always count on you, walleyedretard, to find some discredited theory to promote.

Abiogenic petroleum origin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abiogenic petroleum origin is a discredited hypothesis that was proposed as an alternative to theory of biological petroleum origin. It was relatively popular in the past, but it went largely forgotten at the end of the 20th century after it failed to predict the location of new wells.[1]

Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by many geologists in the former Soviet Union, it allegedly fell out of favor because it never made any useful prediction for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] Most geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported.[1] The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds).[1]

Abiogenic origin hypothesis
The thermodynamic synthesis routes necessary to carry abiogenic source material into subsurface oil are not established, observation of organic markers in kerogen and oil is not explained, and no oil deposits have been located by this hypothesis.[23]

Yes, please note the reason for it falling out of disfavor...they weren't able to figure out a way to predict where large oil deposits could be found. They found oil, just not enough. That would be an interesting area of research though, to see if technology could be developed that would allow you to predict where oil could be found. Instead you clowns divert money to studying whale farts.

I'm curious, walleyedretard, about just when you picked up this depraved love of beating dead horses to mush that you're constantly displaying. Perhaps you tortured small animals as a child?

In any case, there were obviously several reasons for this theory being discredited and for most geologists to consider it "scientifically unsupported", as the material I quoted made clear to everyone but you. Backers of this optimistic theory were unable to explain away the organic markers from the plant sources that are found in petroleum. They couldn't come up with any viable physical mechanisms in the crustal dynamics that would move the supposed abiogenic oil to the subsurface areas where oil has been found. Petroleum geologists using biogenic models of oil sources have been successful in predicting where oil deposits can be found but the abiogenic theory could not duplicate that success. They never found any oil that could definitely be determined to be of abiogenic origin.

 

[wirebender]

No "data manipulation has been exposed", that's just one of your idiotic, denier cult myths that has itself been exposed as just propaganda. The Earth has indeed been warming just as the models predicted and the rate of warming is increasing.

Are you kidding? The cases of climate scientists being caught manipulating data, omitting data, and plain making it up are nearly endless. Hell, practically every peer reviewed piece of crap published claiming AGW is chock full of manipulated or fraudulent data.

Here are a few examples:

The alterations to the data are quite obvious. Make the past cooler and warm the present.

The PAST is Not What it Used to Be (GW Tiger Tale) | Watts Up With That?

Again, adjusting down the past temperatures in order to create unprecedented warming in the present.

GISS Vs NCDC Using The Same Baseline | Real Science

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c014e60ebfc83970c-pi

NASA – Heating Up Antarctica | Real Science

Once more, adjusting the past down and the present up in an effort to produce the appearance of more warming.

C3: Fabricating Fake Global Warming? Evidence of Manipulating U.S. Temperature Data To "Prove" Human-CO2 Warming?

One of the more blatant examples of fraudulent data in an effort to create the illusion of more warming. Whatever it takes to keep those research dollars coming in.

ICECAP

Yet more evidence of altering the temperature record.

ICECAP

More evidence of adjusting the past downward and the present upward.

Cooking The Books At USHCN | Real Science

And example of blatant omission of data in an effort to create the illusion of unprecedented changes in the present.

Hide the Decline: Sciencemag # 3 « Climate Audit

This is a good one. Hansen wants to impress you with the increase in ocean heat content so he shows you a graph; but wait you say, the records go back to the middle 1500's so why establish a cut off date of 1980? When you look at the record going back to the 1500's it becomes abundantly clear why he would cut the record off at 1980. When you look at the entire record it is clear that nothing unprecedented at all is going on today. You guys love to establish cut off dates in an effort to make the present look unprecedented. That is fraud as well my friend.

C3: Fabricating Climate Science The Old-Fashioned NASA Way: It's 2011 And Hansen Still Pulls This Bullsh^t

Here is a good one. Lets create the illusion that Hawaii is burning up. Of course when you look at the actual data, the illusion dries up.

I can go on and on with this. How much more would you like to see. The fact is that at present, the record has been so manipulated and tampered with by climate scientists trying to prove a lie that it simply can no longer be trusted.

 

[wirebender]

Formation of Petroleum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then how about you provide an explanation as to how dead organic matter turns to oil. I am sure that scientists would love to hear it as at present, none of them have a clue. What is known though is that hydrocarbons are being formed near the mantle of the earth and there is no organic material there. So lets hear it smart guy. How does dead organic material turn to oil. Be specific please, as I am very interested to learn how it happens. Describe the chemical process.