Top Scientists: "Warming Exagerated"

[PMZ]

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

Walk into an abortion clinic and tell us how the people there think nothing of what they're doing. Tell us about George W Bush's moral superiority. He opposed abortions and stem cell research but didn't seem to mind murdering 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Can we generalize that sort of ethos to all conservatives? No? Hmmm...

Demonizing your opponents is such a handy technique, isn't it. No need to discuss actual questions and issues. Just convince us that your opponent is an inhuman beast.

I love the way the same people who accuse George Bush of "murdering" Iraqis want to bomb the crap out of Syria and thereby kill thousands of civilians. They also defended bombing Libya and killing thousands of Libyan civilians.

Show us the liberal movement to bomb Syria, as compared to the movement to prevent Assad from bombing his fellow Syrians with chemical weapons.

 

[PMZ]

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

Walk into an abortion clinic and tell us how the people there think nothing of what they're doing. Tell us about George W Bush's moral superiority. He opposed abortions and stem cell research but didn't seem to mind murdering 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Can we generalize that sort of ethos to all conservatives? No? Hmmm...

Demonizing your opponents is such a handy technique, isn't it. No need to discuss actual questions and issues. Just convince us that your opponent is an inhuman beast.

Calling critics of the global warming abracadrabra "deniers" isn't "demonizing" them, is it?

No, it's describing them.

 

[PMZ]

It would be very difficult for anyone to be morally inferior to conservatives.

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

Walk into an abortion clinic and tell us how the people there think nothing of what they're doing. Tell us about George W Bush's moral superiority. He opposed abortions and stem cell research but didn't seem to mind murdering 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Can we generalize that sort of ethos to all conservatives? No? Hmmm...

Demonizing your opponents is such a handy technique, isn't it. No need to discuss actual questions and issues. Just convince us that your opponent is an inhuman beast.

That's the difference between science and politics. Science is the search for the truth. Politics is the search for the win.

 

[bripat9643]

Walk into an abortion clinic and tell us how the people there think nothing of what they're doing. Tell us about George W Bush's moral superiority. He opposed abortions and stem cell research but didn't seem to mind murdering 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Can we generalize that sort of ethos to all conservatives? No? Hmmm...

Demonizing your opponents is such a handy technique, isn't it. No need to discuss actual questions and issues. Just convince us that your opponent is an inhuman beast.

Calling critics of the global warming abracadrabra "deniers" isn't "demonizing" them, is it?

No, it's describing them.

And "jackass" is the correct word to describe you.

 

[Abraham3]

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

Walk into an abortion clinic and tell us how the people there think nothing of what they're doing. Tell us about George W Bush's moral superiority. He opposed abortions and stem cell research but didn't seem to mind murdering 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Can we generalize that sort of ethos to all conservatives? No? Hmmm...

Demonizing your opponents is such a handy technique, isn't it. No need to discuss actual questions and issues. Just convince us that your opponent is an inhuman beast.

Lets get some facts straight.
1 GWBUSH did not attempt to stop stem cell research. He acted to freeze FEDERAL reasearch usi g EMBRIONIC stem lines. Didnt even prohibit using existing ESC lines.

2 The brainless carnage the USA inflicted on Iraq for over 12 yrs was completely BIPARTISAN. With the lowest point being that statement from MADDOG Albright that 250, 000 citizen deaths from just our EMBARGO WAS an acceptable side effect.

How could u not know these things?

The question is where in god's name did you get the idea that anyone thinks you know better? I say the sky is blue and you call me an idiot for being unaware that it actually has no color. I'm really tired of your style of argumentation. Find someone else's time to waste.

 

[flacaltenn]

Walk into an abortion clinic and tell us how the people there think nothing of what they're doing. Tell us about George W Bush's moral superiority. He opposed abortions and stem cell research but didn't seem to mind murdering 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Can we generalize that sort of ethos to all conservatives? No? Hmmm...

Demonizing your opponents is such a handy technique, isn't it. No need to discuss actual questions and issues. Just convince us that your opponent is an inhuman beast.

Lets get some facts straight.
1 GWBUSH did not attempt to stop stem cell research. He acted to freeze FEDERAL reasearch usi g EMBRIONIC stem lines. Didnt even prohibit using existing ESC lines.

2 The brainless carnage the USA inflicted on Iraq for over 12 yrs was completely BIPARTISAN. With the lowest point being that statement from MADDOG Albright that 250, 000 citizen deaths from just our EMBARGO WAS an acceptable side effect.

How could u not know these things?

The question is where in god's name did you get the idea that anyone thinks you know better? I say the sky is blue and you call me an idiot for being unaware that it actually has no color. I'm really tired of your style of argumentation. Find someone else's time to waste.

Largest waste of time is slogging thru miles of partisian shit with little or no factual basis.

If u believe youre correct defend it. Tell me how caring and compassionate the Clinton administration was towards dead Iraqi babies.

 

[skookerasbil]

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

Walk into an abortion clinic and tell us how the people there think nothing of what they're doing. Tell us about George W Bush's moral superiority. He opposed abortions and stem cell research but didn't seem to mind murdering 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Can we generalize that sort of ethos to all conservatives? No? Hmmm...

Demonizing your opponents is such a handy technique, isn't it. No need to discuss actual questions and issues. Just convince us that your opponent is an inhuman beast.

That's the difference between science and politics. Science is the search for the truth. Politics is the search for the win.

That would be known as Realville s0n!! Most of us spend our lives living in it. The climate crusaders? Not so much.

 

[Abraham3]

Walk into an abortion clinic and tell us how the people there think nothing of what they're doing. Tell us about George W Bush's moral superiority. He opposed abortions and stem cell research but didn't seem to mind murdering 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Can we generalize that sort of ethos to all conservatives? No? Hmmm...

Demonizing your opponents is such a handy technique, isn't it. No need to discuss actual questions and issues. Just convince us that your opponent is an inhuman beast.

That's the difference between science and politics. Science is the search for the truth. Politics is the search for the win.

That would be known as Realville s0n!! Most of us spend our lives living in it. The climate crusaders? Not so much.

You're saying that the quest for political power is more real that the scientific study of the natural world.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[PMZ]

That's the difference between science and politics. Science is the search for the truth. Politics is the search for the win.

That would be known as Realville s0n!! Most of us spend our lives living in it. The climate crusaders? Not so much.

You're saying that the quest for political power is more real that the scientific study of the natural world.

Why am I not surprised?

There is nothing more unaffordable in these days and times than party first, future and country last.

The conservative entertainers who promote that for profit are the lowest form of life on the planet. They need to be treated as they've earned by their destructive bullshit.

 

[kwc57]

It would be very difficult for anyone to be morally inferior to conservatives.

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

I figure that if God didn't want us to eat livestock he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Well, that's a no-brainer......which leaves a lot of vegan liberals out.

 

[PMZ]

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

I figure that if God didn't want us to eat livestock he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Well, that's a no-brainer......which leaves a lot of vegan liberals out.

Not many vegans around of any political persuasion.

 

[skookerasbil]

That's the difference between science and politics. Science is the search for the truth. Politics is the search for the win.

That would be known as Realville s0n!! Most of us spend our lives living in it. The climate crusaders? Not so much.

You're saying that the quest for political power is more real that the scientific study of the natural world.

Why am I not surprised?

Im say8ing s0n.....that you obviously don't know how the world works.

But that's ok......my free time would suck without the bubble dwellars on these forums.

Go.....go......go

 

[PMZ]

That would be known as Realville s0n!! Most of us spend our lives living in it. The climate crusaders? Not so much.

You're saying that the quest for political power is more real that the scientific study of the natural world.

Why am I not surprised?

Im say8ing s0n.....that you obviously don't know how the world works.

But that's ok......my free time would suck without the bubble dwellars on these forums.

Go.....go......go

You don't know, or care, grandpa, how the future world must work.

 

[itfitzme]

That's the difference between science and politics. Science is the search for the truth. Politics is the search for the win.

That would be known as Realville s0n!! Most of us spend our lives living in it. The climate crusaders? Not so much.

You're saying that the quest for political power is more real that the scientific study of the natural world.

Why am I not surprised?

His daddy beat him with the rational that he needed to get use to being beaten because that's "how the world works".

A substantial percentage of the population does see reality as a zero sum "win at all costs" game. It is unfortunate as it is so obviously not except that these assholes make it so. They act like assholes then get all upset when they get treated like assholes.

 

[itfitzme]

What I think is the OP is disingenuous at best...

The IPCC report is expected to affirm the human link with greater certainty than ever, but the panel is under pressure to also address the recent lower rate of warming, which scientists say is likely due to heat going deep into the ocean and natural climate fluctuations. - Global warming slowing: What does that mean? - CSMonitor.com

Is the OP being disingenuous?

No --- the OP is simply heralding the consequences of "perverting science in the public interest".. The payback starts now.. The players are starting to feud amongst themselves to avoid the humilation..



Yep --- I've said that.. The skeptics have said that.. The arrogance and bullshit was stunning ------ whilst it lasted.

The Mail on Sunday has also seen an earlier draft of the report, dated October last year. There are many striking differences between it and the current, ‘final’ version.

The 2012 draft makes no mention of the pause and, far from admitting that the
Middle Ages were unusually warm, it states that today’s temperatures are the
highest for at least 1,300 years, as it did in 2007. Prof Allen said the change
‘reflects greater uncertainty about what was happening around the last millennium
but one’.

A further change in the new version is the first-ever scaling down of a crucial
yardstick, the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – the extent to which the world is
meant to warm each time CO2 levels double.
As things stand, the atmosphere is expected to have twice as much CO2 as in
pre-industrial times by about 2050. In 2007, the IPCC said the ‘likeliest’ figure
was 3C, with up to 4.5C still ‘likely’.

Now it does not give a ‘likeliest’ value and admits it is ‘likely’ it may be as
little as 1.5C – so giving the world many more decades to work out how to reduce
carbon emissions before temperatures rise to dangerous levels.

Pretty much my principal objection to YOUR SETTLED SCIENCE all along. Now virtually retracted and fixed by the IPCC.. What more could a skeptic ask for heh???

Not only that but fixing the lies about the MWPeriod.. ALSO a major Skeptic point of argument.. Win win eh??

If you STILL want to diss this IPCC "come to Jesus" moment..

You still ignoring?? Keep it up.. The humiliation will just get more theraputic for ya.......

I think that the graph that you posted would fool people who believe that surface temperature is the only indicator of global energy balance.

It also shows the actual temperature rise to be within the range of expectation.

 

[flacaltenn]

No --- the OP is simply heralding the consequences of "perverting science in the public interest".. The payback starts now.. The players are starting to feud amongst themselves to avoid the humilation..



Yep --- I've said that.. The skeptics have said that.. The arrogance and bullshit was stunning ------ whilst it lasted.



Pretty much my principal objection to YOUR SETTLED SCIENCE all along. Now virtually retracted and fixed by the IPCC.. What more could a skeptic ask for heh???

Not only that but fixing the lies about the MWPeriod.. ALSO a major Skeptic point of argument.. Win win eh??

If you STILL want to diss this IPCC "come to Jesus" moment..

You still ignoring?? Keep it up.. The humiliation will just get more theraputic for ya.......

I think that the graph that you posted would fool people who believe that surface temperature is the only indicator of global energy balance.

It also shows the actual temperature rise to be within the range of expectation.

Bullshit --- the fuel that AGW supporters run on --- is based not on the 2 or 3 outlier models that you claim made the call on temps.. Rather it is ALL BASED on the hysteria of looking at the WORST CASE projections. THOSE are what made your cult front page news.

 

[PMZ]

I think that the graph that you posted would fool people who believe that surface temperature is the only indicator of global energy balance.

It also shows the actual temperature rise to be within the range of expectation.

Bullshit --- the fuel that AGW supporters run on --- is based not on the 2 or 3 outlier models that you claim made the call on temps.. Rather it is ALL BASED on the hysteria of looking at the WORST CASE projections. THOSE are what made your cult front page news.

I'll be that you wish everyday that the denier cult had some supporting science.

Not a chance of that happening though.

 

[flacaltenn]

It also shows the actual temperature rise to be within the range of expectation.

Bullshit --- the fuel that AGW supporters run on --- is based not on the 2 or 3 outlier models that you claim made the call on temps.. Rather it is ALL BASED on the hysteria of looking at the WORST CASE projections. THOSE are what made your cult front page news.

I'll be that you wish everyday that the denier cult had some supporting science.

Not a chance of that happening though.

In this biz --- you CAN reject a theory without offering an alternative.. THat's how it works.
You don't need to solve the problem to show MAJOR ERRORS and FAULTS in a proposed solution..

Looks like -- from the news above --- you've been scammed...

You want better climate science?? Drop the pre-conceived notions about the cause and start THINKING about the problem and the data.. Change the IPCC mission statement to analyzing climate change WITHOUT restricting the scope to those causes due SOLELY TO MAN...

 

[PMZ]

Bullshit --- the fuel that AGW supporters run on --- is based not on the 2 or 3 outlier models that you claim made the call on temps.. Rather it is ALL BASED on the hysteria of looking at the WORST CASE projections. THOSE are what made your cult front page news.

I'll be that you wish everyday that the denier cult had some supporting science.

Not a chance of that happening though.

In this biz --- you CAN reject a theory without offering an alternative.. THat's how it works.
You don't need to solve the problem to show MAJOR ERRORS and FAULTS in a proposed solution..

Looks like -- from the news above --- you've been scammed...

You want better climate science?? Drop the pre-conceived notions about the cause and start THINKING about the problem and the data.. Change the IPCC mission statement to analyzing climate change WITHOUT restricting the scope to those causes due SOLELY TO MAN...

You can do anything that you want.

However, anybody who would be in any way influenced by your uneducated opinion on any science is as dumb as you are for letting media entertainers influence you.

 

[PMZ]

Bullshit --- the fuel that AGW supporters run on --- is based not on the 2 or 3 outlier models that you claim made the call on temps.. Rather it is ALL BASED on the hysteria of looking at the WORST CASE projections. THOSE are what made your cult front page news.

I'll be that you wish everyday that the denier cult had some supporting science.

Not a chance of that happening though.

In this biz --- you CAN reject a theory without offering an alternative.. THat's how it works.
You don't need to solve the problem to show MAJOR ERRORS and FAULTS in a proposed solution..

Looks like -- from the news above --- you've been scammed...

You want better climate science?? Drop the pre-conceived notions about the cause and start THINKING about the problem and the data.. Change the IPCC mission statement to analyzing climate change WITHOUT restricting the scope to those causes due SOLELY TO MAN...

''Change the IPCC mission statement to analyzing climate change WITHOUT restricting the scope to those causes due SOLELY TO MAN.''

In other words dilute the study of things that we can do something about by adding things that we can't.