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.
The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.
Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.
AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.
It is painfully true those which we used to view as scientists have been anointed as such by some pretty shaky organizations. There was a time that science had to pass muster by those that only sponsored the work. Then there were periods in history when the church took a heavy hand in deciding what was truth or not regardless of the information discovered. Leaders often leaned on the truth and bent it out of shape.
Fortunately for the human species these dark times mentioned are nearly totally in the past.
It does not matter what anyone BELIEVES who is not working to find the actual scientific data that confirms or denies AGW. What the bible supposes to suggest is worse than irrelevant. What the bible thumpers WANT you to believe is worse than dangerous.
What data that has been collected suggests that human activity could very well accelerate CO in the atmosphere. How much is still not fully understood. Just the fact that it can accumulate and be added to by our own hand makes it obvious that we should be prepared to reduce our participation in CO levels.
What boggles my mind is WHY anyone would be so against human beings doing what they can to prevent problems. Even if it happens gradually over a hundred years or so do we really want to flood most of Florida and other parts of the coasts of many parts of the globe?
What is the end game for you deniers? What are you trying to prove? If anything is it not prudent to err on the side of caution and not go kicking and screaming into the future putting band aids on just the property of the rich and let the water take over those places that can't afford to put dikes around tiny places where only the wealthy reside and own property?
First of all, I don't know what the bible says about AGW, I didn't know it did, and I don't care.
What is the end game? I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think there is one in my case. I just want the truth. I hate what has been done in the name of science. All the lies, the fraud, the intimidation. All these so called scientists acting very much unlike scientists. Even if it wasn't wrong, it would still be debasing science.
Look at the last statements you made. All more political than scientific. The corporations, blah blah, the rich Blah blah blah.. We can recognise a scam when we see it. If there really is a science message, it's getting lost in the politics and scientists are not only allowing it to happen, they are actively participating in it.
I said absolutely NOTHING about "the corporations..blah" or otherwise.
As far as the bible references it seems to me that the main detractors in the debate on global warming are also the heavy hitters defending the bible and the existence of god. I can't say what the connection is but I suggested that the most gullible, AKA those that subscribe to the sky fairy theory, are being suckered into this debate also. Somebody is making a buck here somewhere because congress just failed to pass a bill that at least acknowledges the fact that human activity is responsible for some of the pollution in the atmosphere. Now WHY do you suppose that happened? Because America and human beings in general have had NO effect on the pollution levels in our air? And congress just wanted to clear up that point?
Sure there have been some so-called scientists or rather activists that have raised a ruckus over pollution and found a home in AGW as the leverage point on their attacks against the polluters. Some if not much of what the activists preach is over the top. I get that. So we ignore what could be a serious problem that we could have a hand in correcting if done early enough because a handfull of fruit cakes offend you?
It seems to me also that the detractors jump on every missed projection as if nothing has happened "so ..what's the problem? and by the way you guys are all liars". In a very similar way these same people attack Obama. The resemblance of the debate tactics is hard to miss. In that sense this is a political debate as well as a scientific one.
You operate from a false premise, you assume that man made climate change is real then you create this whole scenario out of whole cloth to explain to yourself why anyone would doubt what is so obviously the truth. You puzzle and theorize and then make grand assumptions that are false simply because you start with a false premise.
So you didn't actually mention corporations, so what? You mentioned the rich and we've all heard this nonsense before and it also included corporations. You may have left it out but you meant it didn't you?
There is very little science to AGW, it is 99% left wing politics and agenda. Create a problem that doesn't exist, then offer the DNC and liberal policies as the cure for the problem. That is what they do. I'd ask you not to swallow the nonsense but I beleve its too late, isn't it?
Oxygen is one of the most significant keys to deciphering past climates. Oxygen comes in heavy and light varieties, or isotopes, which are useful for paleoclimate research. Like all elements, oxygen is made up of a nucleus of protons and neutrons, surrounded by a cloud of electrons. All oxygen atoms have 8 protons, but the nucleus might contain 8, 9, or 10 neutrons. “Light” oxygen-16, with 8 protons and 8 neutrons, is the most common isotope found in nature, followed by much lesser amounts of “heavy” oxygen-18, with 8 protons and 10 neutrons.
- Paleoclimatology
- Introduction
- Written in the Earth
- A Record from the Deep
- The Ice Core Record
- Climate Close-up
- Explaining the Evidence
- Understanding the Past to Predict the Future
The ratio (relative amount) of these two types of oxygen in water changes with the climate. By determining how the ratio of heavy and light oxygen in marine sediments, ice cores, or fossils is different from a universally accepted standard, scientists can learn something about climate changes that have occurred in the past. The standard scientists use for comparison is based on the ratio of oxygen isotopes in ocean water at a depth of 200-500 meters.
Paleoclimatology The Oxygen Balance Feature Articles
Best stick to swimming pools.
The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.
Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.
AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.
It is painfully true those which we used to view as scientists have been anointed as such by some pretty shaky organizations. There was a time that science had to pass muster by those that only sponsored the work. Then there were periods in history when the church took a heavy hand in deciding what was truth or not regardless of the information discovered. Leaders often leaned on the truth and bent it out of shape.
Fortunately for the human species these dark times mentioned are nearly totally in the past.
It does not matter what anyone BELIEVES who is not working to find the actual scientific data that confirms or denies AGW. What the bible supposes to suggest is worse than irrelevant. What the bible thumpers WANT you to believe is worse than dangerous.
What data that has been collected suggests that human activity could very well accelerate CO in the atmosphere. How much is still not fully understood. Just the fact that it can accumulate and be added to by our own hand makes it obvious that we should be prepared to reduce our participation in CO levels.
What boggles my mind is WHY anyone would be so against human beings doing what they can to prevent problems. Even if it happens gradually over a hundred years or so do we really want to flood most of Florida and other parts of the coasts of many parts of the globe?
What is the end game for you deniers? What are you trying to prove? If anything is it not prudent to err on the side of caution and not go kicking and screaming into the future putting band aids on just the property of the rich and let the water take over those places that can't afford to put dikes around tiny places where only the wealthy reside and own property?
First of all, I don't know what the bible says about AGW, I didn't know it did, and I don't care.
What is the end game? I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think there is one in my case. I just want the truth. I hate what has been done in the name of science. All the lies, the fraud, the intimidation. All these so called scientists acting very much unlike scientists. Even if it wasn't wrong, it would still be debasing science.
Look at the last statements you made. All more political than scientific. The corporations, blah blah, the rich Blah blah blah.. We can recognise a scam when we see it. If there really is a science message, it's getting lost in the politics and scientists are not only allowing it to happen, they are actively participating in it.
I said absolutely NOTHING about "the corporations..blah" or otherwise.
As far as the bible references it seems to me that the main detractors in the debate on global warming are also the heavy hitters defending the bible and the existence of god. I can't say what the connection is but I suggested that the most gullible, AKA those that subscribe to the sky fairy theory, are being suckered into this debate also. Somebody is making a buck here somewhere because congress just failed to pass a bill that at least acknowledges the fact that human activity is responsible for some of the pollution in the atmosphere. Now WHY do you suppose that happened? Because America and human beings in general have had NO effect on the pollution levels in our air? And congress just wanted to clear up that point?
Sure there have been some so-called scientists or rather activists that have raised a ruckus over pollution and found a home in AGW as the leverage point on their attacks against the polluters. Some if not much of what the activists preach is over the top. I get that. So we ignore what could be a serious problem that we could have a hand in correcting if done early enough because a handfull of fruit cakes offend you?
It seems to me also that the detractors jump on every missed projection as if nothing has happened "so ..what's the problem? and by the way you guys are all liars". In a very similar way these same people attack Obama. The resemblance of the debate tactics is hard to miss. In that sense this is a political debate as well as a scientific one.
You operate from a false premise, you assume that man made climate change is real then you create this whole scenario out of whole cloth to explain to yourself why anyone would doubt what is so obviously the truth. You puzzle and theorize and then make grand assumptions that are false simply because you start with a false premise.
So you didn't actually mention corporations, so what? You mentioned the rich and we've all heard this nonsense before and it also included corporations. You may have left it out but you meant it didn't you?
There is very little science to AGW, it is 99% left wing politics and agenda. Create a problem that doesn't exist, then offer the DNC and liberal policies as the cure for the problem. That is what they do. I'd ask you not to swallow the nonsense but I beleve its too late, isn't it?
Now you know what I "mean" regardless of what I say or do not say? That's some talent Sparky. Well hell's bells you don't seem to need any other participants to carry on a debate do you. This is where I leave your singular discussion.
Oxygen is one of the most significant keys to deciphering past climates. Oxygen comes in heavy and light varieties, or isotopes, which are useful for paleoclimate research. Like all elements, oxygen is made up of a nucleus of protons and neutrons, surrounded by a cloud of electrons. All oxygen atoms have 8 protons, but the nucleus might contain 8, 9, or 10 neutrons. “Light” oxygen-16, with 8 protons and 8 neutrons, is the most common isotope found in nature, followed by much lesser amounts of “heavy” oxygen-18, with 8 protons and 10 neutrons.
- Paleoclimatology
- Introduction
- Written in the Earth
- A Record from the Deep
- The Ice Core Record
- Climate Close-up
- Explaining the Evidence
- Understanding the Past to Predict the Future
The ratio (relative amount) of these two types of oxygen in water changes with the climate. By determining how the ratio of heavy and light oxygen in marine sediments, ice cores, or fossils is different from a universally accepted standard, scientists can learn something about climate changes that have occurred in the past. The standard scientists use for comparison is based on the ratio of oxygen isotopes in ocean water at a depth of 200-500 meters.
Paleoclimatology The Oxygen Balance Feature Articles
Best stick to swimming pools.
Oh look, a link that describes exactly what I was saying. And yet you somehow try to use it as if it were a counter point.
It clearly IS a hoax.AGW is.
I honestly thought we were doing flac a favor by ignoring this, but he just said he really wants to discuss it. Go fig.
CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. It will cause about 1degC/doubing of concentration in the ATMOS. Most of our better "deniers" agree to that.
Yes, both of you. Sanity is hard to find in Denierstan these days.
But the rest of hype happened when scientists willingly allowed the socio-political activists to misintrepret their work.
Then your political party shouldn't have done that. The science wasn't political until your side deliberately made it so. If you want it to stop, then stop.
Statements like the "current rate of warming is unprecendented in the past 10,000 years is based on studies that never had the data integrity or the resolution to determine that.
In your opinion. Which mainly comes from very peculiar websites run by very dodgy people.
And studies of the "energy balance" got the right teensy tiny answer while ignoring the rather large "ocean storage" component that the warmers now blame for the failure of their models that were magically multiplying about 1 degC into 7 or 8 DegC by 2100.
That doesn't seem attached to reality at all.
There are credible recent polls of Climate Scientists indicating that THEY don't believe those historical "proxy" temperature studies and that MANY feel their field was an immature science when they launched into the front of public attention.
That's nice. Some handwaving about unnamed people, which all has nothing to do with the science being a hoax.
Al Gore described it perfectly when he screamed out "They Played on Your Fears".. He just was talking about another cause.
And some more of your politicizing to end it. You don't see the rational people here doing that.
I didn't see any evidence for a hoax there. What I saw fell more under the category of "rambling".
What needs to happen, but won't, is that the scientists, if they actually bieve in AGW, need to tell the politicians, including our idiot president, to shut the fuck up. The lying, corruption, and money grabbing being done in the name of AGW is causing all of the problems. They also need to police themselves here to eliminate the same from their ranks.
I mean IF the really believe the crap they are spewing, and they really believe that it is going to harm us or the earth or whatever, then they need to clean up the whole act.
They don't do any of it for three likely reasons:
1. It's where the money is right now.
2. They don't really believe it.
3. Intimidation. Threatening to end their careers.
The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.
Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.
AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.
Emeril Lagasse is Portuguese, not Cajun, and from Massachusetts, not Louisiana. So your attempted analogy is ironical in its ironicality.
Far more interesting to this observer is the, for lack of a better term, "AGW Deniers" who know about the same about science as you describe, yet somehow "know" it's all a giant hoax perpetuated by Al Gore from his Fortress of Solitude where he invented the Internet. That takes a special kind of arrogance.
It clearly IS a hoax.
Thank you. Took all of two minutes to demonstrate exactly the fallacy I described.
Btw FCT --- being omniscient and all, when you have time, at your convenience of course, could you PM me the next Mega Lotto winning numbers? There's fifty bucks in it for ya. TIA.
I noticed you ignored my obsersations that back up my assertion of a hoax. If you think I was wrong on any one of them---- please point it out. Then maybe ill share my intuition about Lotto numbers. I have several hundred things we should discuss about misrepresentations the GWarmers have made. How much interest and time you got?
The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.
Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.
AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.
Emeril Lagasse is Portuguese, not Cajun, and from Massachusetts, not Louisiana. So your attempted analogy is ironical in its ironicality.
Far more interesting to this observer is the, for lack of a better term, "AGW Deniers" who know about the same about science as you describe, yet somehow "know" it's all a giant hoax perpetuated by Al Gore from his Fortress of Solitude where he invented the Internet. That takes a special kind of arrogance.
It clearly IS a hoax.
Thank you. Took all of two minutes to demonstrate exactly the fallacy I described.
Btw FCT --- being omniscient and all, when you have time, at your convenience of course, could you PM me the next Mega Lotto winning numbers? There's fifty bucks in it for ya. TIA.
I noticed you ignored my obsersations that back up my assertion of a hoax. If you think I was wrong on any one of them---- please point it out. Then maybe ill share my intuition about Lotto numbers. I have several hundred things we should discuss about misrepresentations the GWarmers have made. How much interest and time you got?
I didn't even bother with the rest, as your initial sentence got straight to the point and confirmed what I just said about the arrogance of absolutism. Thanks for that. Nice and clean.
Most recently here, post 125 just repeats the same fallacy. Over and over and over....
Emeril Lagasse is Portuguese, not Cajun, and from Massachusetts, not Louisiana. So your attempted analogy is ironical in its ironicality.
Far more interesting to this observer is the, for lack of a better term, "AGW Deniers" who know about the same about science as you describe, yet somehow "know" it's all a giant hoax perpetuated by Al Gore from his Fortress of Solitude where he invented the Internet. That takes a special kind of arrogance.
It clearly IS a hoax.
Thank you. Took all of two minutes to demonstrate exactly the fallacy I described.
Btw FCT --- being omniscient and all, when you have time, at your convenience of course, could you PM me the next Mega Lotto winning numbers? There's fifty bucks in it for ya. TIA.
I noticed you ignored my obsersations that back up my assertion of a hoax. If you think I was wrong on any one of them---- please point it out. Then maybe ill share my intuition about Lotto numbers. I have several hundred things we should discuss about misrepresentations the GWarmers have made. How much interest and time you got?
I didn't even bother with the rest, as your initial sentence got straight to the point and confirmed what I just said about the arrogance of absolutism. Thanks for that. Nice and clean.
Most recently here, post 125 just repeats the same fallacy. Over and over and over....
Save your disdain for absolutism for the liberal arts -- OK? There are topics and disciplines where facts and rules and data are absolute.
The case for Man-Made Global Warming just isn't one of them. BECAUSE of the misinterpretations and deceptions that have propagated in the name of that cause. The largest being that the "science is over", which Mother Nature has handily refuted over the past decade or more. Or the myth that our past 50 years of observations is proven to be unprecedented or unique.
Did ya at least get the part about the general agreement that CO2 might cause up to 1degC/doubling? And do you realize here that today we sit here not yet at the first doubling of CO2 in the atmos since the Ind. Revolution hit 3rd gear and the temperature has warmed about 0.8degC? That includes part of the recovery from a Little Ice Age.
I'd say THAT consensus is an important one. The rest of the AGWarmining myth (including the apocalyptic boiling of the oceans) is designed to play on the general environmental fears of the public. Jump in at any point to make non-absolute generalities that would set me straight.
Wasn't talking to you litterbreath. My rambling on a bad day is genius compared to your best ad hominem posts. There ARE folks who might want an HONEST discussion of why the AGW movement is dying...
Wasn't talking to you litterbreath. My rambling on a bad day is genius compared to your best ad hominem posts. There ARE folks who might want an HONEST discussion of why the AGW movement is dying...
Your devolution continues. Even rambling pseudoscience nonsense is beyond you now.. I especially enjoyed the hypocrisy of you sulking about ad homs right after you flung one.
Every denier here is now literally just a conspiracy cultist. They're all in the same category as flat earthers, birthers, antivaxxers, UFO cultists and 9/11 truthers. Except those conspiracy groups whine less, and make more sense.
You are, of course, all free to keep repeating the same debunked conspiracy theories over and over. I just wouldn't get your hopes up that the results will be different next time.
[/URL][/URL]
[/URL]
Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Yes, there is a scientific consensus that AGW is real. There is not a consensus on the reality among the uneducated and willfully ignorant. Those that believe in the 'Way thing oughter be', rather than the way things really are.
what proves adding CO2 causes an increase in temperature. Do you have an experiment? Please let us all see it and read it.There is nothing to prove Huggy. We were told by the AGW crowd that if CO2 concentrations ever got above 350 ppm the world was doomed!!
Well, CO2 concentrations are now well above 400 ppm and we have had no statistically significant warming in over 18 years.
The theory is a bust. I
I still support alternate energy sources. I love solar and have it on my house and have used it to heat my pool for over 25 years. I never pollute and I recycle.
I do those things voluntarily not because of some bullshit theory pimped by hypocrites who ride around in jets while exhorting the "little people" to make sacrifices.....
How can you claim the general theory of global warming as a "bust" just because of one statistical missed prediction? That sounds like denying that automobiles exist because they don't all meet mileage standards. I don't care about some stupid arbitrary number. It OBVIOUSLY was published without enough information to back up such a claim. That hardly proves Global Warming is a hoax.
it isn't, so not sure what it is your looking at. Cryosphere is the accurate data.For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.
Indeed, the BBT is starting to look like a relic of the past.
According to whom? Was it posted on the day room bulletin board?
You should pay a little bit of attention to what's happening in science. This is the problem with most of you AGW believers. You don't really know squat about science, you think that agreeing with AGW makes you smart. It doesn't. It only makes you a victim of the scam.
First of all I don't believe everything I read or see or hear. And I do tend to recognize a scam when I see one like when you say "the polar ice is not receding".
the problem you have is that there is absolutely no evidence that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Herr Koch in 1901 disproved that in an experiment and although most reject his experiment, no one can disprove it. Hmmmmmm, why is that? Because it isn't so. CO2 lags temperature. The fact that you don't even know that is proof you haven't done your homework on finding out what is actually going on in our atmosphere. your lines are so so similar to the left wing agenda suggests you sucked in the bait and swallowed the hook. If you are truly concerned, then look at the ice in the cryoshphere and do some research. you will find that ice melts in the summer and regrows in the winter. It's been doing that since the ice age ended. Same with the Antarctic. Please, do some research and just weigh what you read.The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.
Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.
AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.
It is painfully true those which we used to view as scientists have been anointed as such by some pretty shaky organizations. There was a time that science had to pass muster by those that only sponsored the work. Then there were periods in history when the church took a heavy hand in deciding what was truth or not regardless of the information discovered. Leaders often leaned on the truth and bent it out of shape.
Fortunately for the human species these dark times mentioned are nearly totally in the past.
It does not matter what anyone BELIEVES who is not working to find the actual scientific data that confirms or denies AGW. What the bible supposes to suggest is worse than irrelevant. What the bible thumpers WANT you to believe is worse than dangerous.
What data that has been collected suggests that human activity could very well accelerate CO in the atmosphere. How much is still not fully understood. Just the fact that it can accumulate and be added to by our own hand makes it obvious that we should be prepared to reduce our participation in CO levels.
What boggles my mind is WHY anyone would be so against human beings doing what they can to prevent problems. Even if it happens gradually over a hundred years or so do we really want to flood most of Florida and other parts of the coasts of many parts of the globe?
What is the end game for you deniers? What are you trying to prove? If anything is it not prudent to err on the side of caution and not go kicking and screaming into the future putting band aids on just the property of the rich and let the water take over those places that can't afford to put dikes around tiny places where only the wealthy reside and own property?
First of all, I don't know what the bible says about AGW, I didn't know it did, and I don't care.
What is the end game? I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think there is one in my case. I just want the truth. I hate what has been done in the name of science. All the lies, the fraud, the intimidation. All these so called scientists acting very much unlike scientists. Even if it wasn't wrong, it would still be debasing science.
Look at the last statements you made. All more political than scientific. The corporations, blah blah, the rich Blah blah blah.. We can recognise a scam when we see it. If there really is a science message, it's getting lost in the politics and scientists are not only allowing it to happen, they are actively participating in it.
I said absolutely NOTHING about "the corporations..blah" or otherwise.
As far as the bible references it seems to me that the main detractors in the debate on global warming are also the heavy hitters defending the bible and the existence of god. I can't say what the connection is but I suggested that the most gullible, AKA those that subscribe to the sky fairy theory, are being suckered into this debate also. Somebody is making a buck here somewhere because congress just failed to pass a bill that at least acknowledges the fact that human activity is responsible for some of the pollution in the atmosphere. Now WHY do you suppose that happened? Because America and human beings in general have had NO effect on the pollution levels in our air? And congress just wanted to clear up that point?
Sure there have been some so-called scientists or rather activists that have raised a ruckus over pollution and found a home in AGW as the leverage point on their attacks against the polluters. Some if not much of what the activists preach is over the top. I get that. So we ignore what could be a serious problem that we could have a hand in correcting if done early enough because a handfull of fruit cakes offend you?
It seems to me also that the detractors jump on every missed projection as if nothing has happened "so ..what's the problem? and by the way you guys are all liars". In a very similar way these same people attack Obama. The resemblance of the debate tactics is hard to miss. In that sense this is a political debate as well as a scientific one.
