Global Warming...

[X. Benedict]

I agree, that would be enough to kick my brothers ass, for touching my bottle of Jameson.

 

Yum. Jameson. Brilliant!

[meazza]

Wake up Potsie! He's kicking your ass up and down the court.

 

Yup, real ass kicking

[Alaska Darin]

Wake up Potsie! He's kicking your ass up and down the court.

 

It's even funnier that your lack of ability to think for yourself means you actually believe that. Please don't ever leave - I'd miss your hypocrisy.

[finknottle]

Global warming exists. The earth is getting warmer, But it is NOT due to humans.

 

Play on, Nero.

[finknottle]

I didnt say it takes away any responsibility we have of being responsible. I'm more into the science than the actual policy. The earth is warming. when the warming cycle comes to an end, we are going to head into a long ice age. Its how the cycles work. The earth will take care of herself. Humans arrogantly think we can "destroy" the earth, but in the end (of course, this could be millions of years off), if things are shifted too far out of balance, we'll get ours. The earth will take care of herself, and we'll be left by the wayside.

 

Cycles hold, until they don't. There was concern (no evidence either way, other than that our 12,000 year warm period was longer than any previous one) that the cycles of ice ages and warm ages was coming to an end. Other than the notion that it would happen in our particular warm period, this would not be shocking given that the cycle was geologically unusual, and only in place for about 2.5 million years. For the previous 100 million years the earth was uniformly hotter, no ice ages, with about 20% of todays land masses submerged.

[SilverNRed]

Wake up Potsie! He's kicking your ass up and down the court.

PatSack is kicking ass the same way a squirrel kicks the ass of the car that just ran it over. Splat.

 

So far his argument is something along the lines of "90% of scientists think there's global warming and if you don't agree then you don't think for yourself or you failed Earth Science. And my grandpa lived through the Great Depression."

 

Anyone who really believes that global warming is caused by man might as well kiss their ass goodbye. Even if the U.S. spends the trillions it would take to actually decrease America's emissions as our population increases, China's rapidly growing economy will more than make up for those emissions and they'll increase worldwide.

[Chef Jim]

Obviously even if we aren't responsible for the Earth's warming as a whole, it's still a pretty sh------- life when we are covered with smog and toxic fumes.

 

As if total destruction is the only reason we need to stop polluting.

 

Obviously it takes a disaster before people even start giving a sh--.

 

Yeah, we have done nothing but sit by and watch. When I moved to CA in 1983 the sky was more yellow than blue and we never saw the mountains. Now we very rarely have stage one smog alerts and we can see the mountains more days than not. But the earth continues to warm.

[Joey Balls]

 

It's even funnier that your lack of ability to think for yourself means you actually believe that. Please don't ever leave - I'd miss your hypocrisy.

 

 

Gee whiz Darin I hope you realize I had no intention of even looking at this thread, given the thuddingly dull and redundant subject matter (debunking global warming by non-scientists and other wingnut conservatives) and the fact that you started it.

 

But I guess I was weak.

[meazza]

Gee whiz Darin I hope you realize I had no intention of even looking at this thread, given the thuddingly dull and redundant subject matter (debunking global warming by non-scientists and other wingnut conservatives) and the fact that you started it.

 

But I guess I was weak.

 

And yet you still did, and still look like a moron.

 

Good job.

[Joey Balls]

And yet you still did, and still look like a moron.

 

Good job.

 

 

It ain't so much that twerp as it is amusing for me to behold the idiocy of the anti-environmentalists.

It gives me every bit of optimism in the world that thanks to the jackasses who perpetuate these screwball "opinions" as if they were fact, we will soon be headed for planned obsolescence

 

But heck don't let me burst your bubble champ.........just keep swallowing the lies Derwood and his ilk like to champion.

[meazza]

It ain't so much that twerp as it is amusing for me to behold the idiocy of the anti-environmentalists.

It gives me every bit of optimism in the world that thanks to the jackasses who perpetuate these screwball "opinions" as if they were fact, we will soon be headed for planned obsolescence

 

But heck don't let me burst your bubble champ.........just keep swallowing the lies Derwood and his ilk like to champion.

 

Actually. You have no idea what my opinion is on this matter. You have no idea if I agree with good ol Al or vice versa. You have no clue wtf my "screwball" opinion is. What you do know is I consider you a !@#$ing idiot. Please don't assume that it is only the anti-Gw crowd that think you're a moron. I'm pretty sure people from all walks of life and ideologies have a very low opinion of you.

[Joey Balls]

Actually. You have no idea what my opinion is on this matter. You have no idea if I agree with good ol Al or vice versa. You have no clue wtf my "screwball" opinion is. What you do know is I consider you a !@#$ing idiot. Please don't assume that it is only the anti-Gw crowd that think you're a moron. I'm pretty sure people from all walks of life and ideologies have a very low opinion of you.

 

 

And I don't care what your screwball opinion is. Judging by your neanderthal avatar I'm absolutely positive I don't want to know your opinions.

[meazza]

And I don't care what your screwball opinion is. Judging by your neanderthal avatar I'm absolutely positive I don't want to know your opinions.

 

A half naked chick holding a flag.

 

Yeah, real neanderthal.

 

[Joey Balls]

A half naked chick holding a flag.

 

Yeah, real neanderthal.

 

 

 

Ok...I see what I'm dealing with here.

 

 

Later

[meazza]

Ok...I see what I'm dealing with here.

Later

 

Another battle you won in your head there.

 

Good job

[finknottle]

Anyone who really believes that global warming is caused by man might as well kiss their ass goodbye. Even if the U.S. spends the trillions it would take to actually decrease America's emissions as our population increases, China's rapidly growing economy will more than make up for those emissions and they'll increase worldwide.

 

I don't care if it is man-made or not, but I find the science convincing. And I agree that the political realities will prevent anything we do here from slowing down what is happening elsewhere. So yes, I think we can kiss our asses goodbye. Or at least the asses of our descendents.

 

So what is worse - fatalism or denial? Shall we reject our inconvenient calculations?

[PatPatPatSack]

.................................

 

As far as "not caring a whit" (whatever the fukk that is), you're wrong. I simply don't care what your opinion of me is. Try and figure out the difference.

 

Actually, I think I know you better than maybe I care to. I've read well over 1000 of your posts and the responses to them. That is a body of work that is pretty indicative of either what you believe, or some persona you are spending way too much time to cultivate.

 

And it is having witnessed that, that I feel pretty safe in calling out your attitude as a, well since the kids are in bed and you prefer it, a dick. That really is based upon your body of work mind you, not your claims today.

 

As to the difference between caring and this macho beer he-man attitude, I think I am pretty safe there too. You don't much care for anybody. Not that I've seen. So let the chips fall where they may, but you have been pretty eloquent in stating that. Hey if I am wrong, show me why. But don't pretend that after 10,000 posts (god, I just looked and it was 25k), you give a pretty good picture of yourself and your character. Alaska Darin = Great Humanitarian doesn't seem to be the phrase of choice around here. Maybe I missed the post.

 

Back to the real reason I picked this fight. "Junk Science" as mantra. After Ramius gives some evidence that he has actually studied the issue and applied some scientific reasoning to the issue and seems well on the way to contributing, you do a throw up of a few unrelated items and disparage the entire body of scientific thought, publications, discourse, freakin issues of Scientific American. You know if you are going to throw GW under the bus (global not greggo), you got to do better than that. That is precisely my point. And here it is yet agin for those who can't glean it from my writing.

 

It is the height of stupidity, to ignore learned men, discussing learned things, by saying ahh.... they don't know what they are talking about.

 

They do. They attempt to prove it using time and world tested techniques. Your ranting does not change that. What your ranting does, is give obviously less than able thinkers like silver and gold (sorry Silv, you just don't seem to have the cleverness to hang in this battle) a rally point. Yours is a sort of leadership position for the less capable.

 

I'm just hoping that, like in the creation vs. evolution dialog, we keep reminding folks that we are not the wackos. We represent what is the search for truth. The aspiration for man to improve himself. And the hope that our children are free from fear and harm.

 

Seems like it should be a popular strategy. My disappointment is that it isn't.

[X. Benedict]

So what is worse - fatalism or denial? Shall we reject our inconvenient calculations?

 

What is worse is polarization on what is fundamentally a scientific question.

For some this seems locked shut - and they will not be convinced either way.

 

If the hypothesis is that global warming is primarily attributed to man made carbon emissions and that the Earth is heating up at an alarming rate - you have to account for data that doesn't fit the hypothesis.

 

Not being able to account for it means either the hypothesis is wrong, the data is wrong, or there is something else going on.

 

Skepticism is the check on bad science.

 

I just called my broker to sell cold fusion stocks - I took quite a hit.

[SilverNRed]

They do. They attempt to prove it using time and world tested techniques. Your ranting does not change that. What your ranting does, is give obviously less than able thinkers like silver and gold (sorry Silv, you just don't seem to have the cleverness to hang in this battle) a rally point. Yours is a sort of leadership position for the less capable.

Yeah, either that or I'm too busy at work during the day to write monster-sized posts on this message board to pompous !@#$s like you.

 

Look at this crap you wrote below. This reads like self-parody:

I'm just hoping that, like in the creation vs. evolution dialog, we keep reminding folks that we are not the wackos. We represent what is the search for truth. The aspiration for man to improve himself. And the hope that our children are free from fear and harm.

 

Seems like it should be a popular strategy. My disappointment is that it isn't.

Do you talk like that in real life? "Hello, my name is Mr. Smith, and I represent the search for truth. The aspiration for man to improve himself. And the hope that our children are free from fear and harm."

 

And then you can continue:

"And as the protector of truth and justice in the universe, I know the best way to ensure that my children are always free from fear is to make sure that they are always aware of the global warming that is going to kill them all and that they never, ever question it or consider any evidence against it. Because that's silly. And the scientists that don't believe in man-made global warming care nothing for truth or enlightenment."

 

Sorry if I'm not totally convinced that the earth's climate is rapidly spinning out of control because of emissions (not that emissions are good) but if buying into everything Al Gore says makes you the representation of the search for truth and the aspiration for all mankind to join hands across the world and sing together in perfect harmony until the end of time, then I guess maybe I should take a closer look.

[PatPatPatSack]

What is worse is polarization on what is fundamentally a scientific question.

For some this seems locked shut - and they will not be convinced either way.

 

If the hypothesis is that global warming is primarily attributed to man made carbon emissions and that the Earth is heating up at an alarming rate - you have to account for data that doesn't fit the hypothesis.

 

Not being able to account for it means either the hypothesis is wrong, the data is wrong, or there is something else going on.

 

Skepticism is the check on bad science.

 

I just called my broker to sell cold fusion stocks - I took quite a hit.

 

I think the hypothesis is that there is a warming trend. And that it may have a great effect on the environment and it's current stastis.

 

I would suggest that skepticism is not the check on bad science. Good science is the check. Skepticism should be what motivates good science. Skepticism without good science is just an unbalanced belief system. Heck I subscribe to The Skeptic Magazine (from right here in Amherst! good stuff!). But to be a skeptic comes with it a responsibility for a higher degree of proof. Otherwise you are just a crank. Or you/it becomes the province of religion and matters become accepted "on faith".

 

Can good science produce incorrect conclusions? Sure. I consider bad science not incorrect conclusions, but poorly done science. But it takes a very high degree of insight and knowlege to be able to pan someones efforts as "bad science" It requires a greater degree of proof. It is a problem because everyone wants to discover something and noone wants to spend a career checking out someones else's work and saying - yep, it's good.

 

So I agree mostly with your post. And only differ in making the hypothesis and our argument today a bit simpler. There is still tremendous power in a conclusion that the is such of a thing as Global Warming. And it's presence is going to be not insignificant.

 

I wonder, who feels that this hypothesis is true, not true, or unproven?

 

And who would agree that this report, conclusions notwithstanding, is a product of junk science?

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

[X. Benedict]

By skepticism I mean continual and rigorous revaluation of data that may challenge conclusions.

Something different from challenging the political motives of the data collectors.

 

That's right here in the X. Benedictionary.

[Alaska Darin]

Antarticaaaugh!

 

This link requires a login. Most of you won't bother, so here's the "interesting part" - most of which doesn't contain the fear mongering of the article.

 

Highlights:

 

"Now, two new research efforts have tackled the subject -- producing new insights into the systems that control and change Antarctica, as well into the worrisome limits to our knowledge about the suddenly crucial continent."

 

"The first project revealed that a previously unknown system of seemingly connected lakes lies under the massive streams of ice that move Antarctica's frozen water from the center of the continent to its coasts. It is a system that might work to moderate climate change, the researchers said, or alternatively might speed it up if a tipping point is reached."

 

"Yet at this point, we know very little about the physics of how it works,"

 

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has specifically asked researchers to speed their studies of the dynamics of Antarctic climate and how its ice is formed, moved and melted." - this is just after they release their most current study that says Global Warming is definitely happening and is definitely man made. Ever had your boss ask you to speed something up that can't be sped up? Is that usually sound management or the result of some kind of political manuevering?

 

Followed by: "Disappearance of the west Antarctic ice sheet, for instance, could raise worldwide sea levels by about 20 feet." Fear mongering?

 

"David Bromwich has been recording Antarctic temperatures and snowfall for some time, and his newest results do not conform to the predictions of most climate models." Gee, computer modeling based on our "knowledge" of climatology isn't conforming? That's not news, it's actually the trend.

 

"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica," Shocking.

 

"That finding is itself a cause for concern, he said, because it means that scientists' ability to understand the Antarctic climate, and so to predict how it may change, appears limited." But Global Warming is coming damnit! And it's man made!

 

"We thought these changes took place over years and decades, but we are seeing large changes over months". Which means they now have so many years of study, both forwards and backwards before they have any actual idea of what is really going on.

 

"In addition, he said, the loss of ozone is believed by some researchers to cause the intensifying westerly winds." Don't worry, it won't be long until "90% of scientists" agree with this hypothesis and it directly correlates to "Global Warming". It's called "results via expectation."

 

"Every time we think we understand something, we find that conditions are more complicated, more dynamic than we appreciated. Things are changing fast, and probably a whole lot faster than we know." But the IPCC can now directly attribute "Global Warming" to human action.

[Ramius]

I think the hypothesis is that there is a warming trend. And that it may have a great effect on the environment and it's current stastis.

 

I would suggest that skepticism is not the check on bad science. Good science is the check. Skepticism should be what motivates good science. Skepticism without good science is just an unbalanced belief system. Heck I subscribe to The Skeptic Magazine (from right here in Amherst! good stuff!). But to be a skeptic comes with it a responsibility for a higher degree of proof. Otherwise you are just a crank. Or you/it becomes the province of religion and matters become accepted "on faith".

 

Can good science produce incorrect conclusions? Sure. I consider bad science not incorrect conclusions, but poorly done science. But it takes a very high degree of insight and knowlege to be able to pan someones efforts as "bad science" It requires a greater degree of proof. It is a problem because everyone wants to discover something and noone wants to spend a career checking out someones else's work and saying - yep, it's good.

 

So I agree mostly with your post. And only differ in making the hypothesis and our argument today a bit simpler. There is still tremendous power in a conclusion that the is such of a thing as Global Warming. And it's presence is going to be not insignificant.

 

I wonder, who feels that this hypothesis is true, not true, or unproven?

 

And who would agree that this report, conclusions notwithstanding, is a product of junk science?

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

 

Bad science is leaving out data that defies your point or calls it into question. Again, why did algore leave out all of this data from prior to 1930, etc? Because it throws a ton of doubt on his "conclusions" that global warming is human caused. Its holcombs arm type science..."when the data doesnt fit, throw it out!"

[Wacka]

Gore keeps using the word "consensus".

Consensus is not fact. There was a consensus at one time that the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

 

Also, he wouldn't shut up yesterday,from what I heard.

[Bungee Jumper]

Bad science is leaving out data that defies your point or calls it into question. Again, why did algore leave out all of this data from prior to 1930, etc? Because it throws a ton of doubt on his "conclusions" that global warming is human caused. Its holcombs arm type science..."when the data doesnt fit, throw it out!"

 

 

Let's be brutally clear on one thing, though: NOTHING Al Gore has done is science. Nothing. At best, it's politicking based on science. At worst, it's propaganda based on science.

 

Personally, I think Gore's BS qualifies as religion, being as it is defined as unfalsifiable and untestable. But it's certainly not science.

[PatPatPatSack]

Antarticaaaugh!

 

This link requires a login. Most of you won't bother, so here's the "interesting part" - most of which doesn't contain the fear mongering of the article.

 

Highlights:

 

But the IPCC can now directly attribute "Global Warming" to human action.

 

At no time have I championed anthropogenic global warming. I made two claims.

 

For those that need brevity:

 

a. the globe is gettin warmer. and it ain't "junk science" that indicates it.

 

b. Alaska Darin is a dick.

 

so far, thru thousands of words, no one has refuted either proposition. I have been name called (hey I asked for that ) and other strawmen have been burned at the stake, but still nothing on a or b. I've gotten hints of term papers and all kinds of attacks on my writing. I even have given linkies for them that need them. You guys are so used to quarrelling, you don't even know how to present an argument.

 

So what is it? T or F ?

[GG]

At no time have I championed anthropogenic global warming. I made two claims.

 

For those that need brevity:

 

a. the globe is gettin warmer. and it ain't "junk science" that indicates it.

 

I believe that in the vast majority of cases here, "junk science" refers to the conclusions that "Mr. President" has drawn from his decades long search for manbearpig, not the science that shows that we're in a warming cycle. But that wouldn't fit your rants, so why parse that detail?

 

 

b. Alaska Darin is a dick.

 

False. AD is an a-hole.

[Alaska Darin]

At no time have I championed anthropogenic global warming. I made two claims.

 

For those that need brevity:

 

a. the globe is gettin warmer. and it ain't "junk science" that indicates it.

Really? You mean because there's no one out there questioning the gathering of the temperature data or the biases in allowance for "Urban heating"? Because you'd be wrong on both counts. Oh, but 90% of the science "community" whose increased funding pretty much depends on this being serious business, all agree that it's getting warmer (as long as the charts don't go back a whole lot further) and now have made the leap to "humans are causing it" (which you linked but aren't apparently now behind).

 

Again, I ask: Where are the double blind studies on "Global Warming"?

 

b. Alaska Darin is a dick.

And you've got the balls of a gnat. Since no one has refuted that statement, it's also now law. I can live with being a "diick" and a "dick". Especially considering the source.

so far, thru thousands of words, no one has refuted either proposition. I have been name called (hey I asked for that ) and other strawmen have been burned at the stake, but still nothing on a or b. I've gotten hints of term papers and all kinds of attacks on my writing. I even have given linkies for them that need them. You guys are so used to quarrelling, you don't even know how to present an argument.

 

So what is it? T or F ?

None of the things I've posted are term papers. They are each from accepted scientific research in the field, including papers from the same entity you used, that only 5 years ago said pretty much the opposite of what they're now saying.

[erynthered]

Here's the link for every one of the below story's

 

http://www.schnittshow.com/globalwarming.html

 

 

It is virtually shoved down our throats that scientists are in complete agreement about global warming. Al Gore and the media assure us that there is an absolute consensus in the scientific community that humans are heating the planet and irreversible damage is looming as a result of man's carbon output. How about some intellectual honesty? Reasonable debate? Or, in the least a different explanation. Below is one of the largest collections of articles and opinion pieces, many written by respected scientists, who dispute the 'anointed' explanation for global warming. This list will continue to grow, so check back frequently.

 

Schnitt's Global Warming Files

 

Man-made Global Warming - So What If It's a Hoax? By Geoffrey P. Hunt

EARTH IN THE BALANCE Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming. BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN

FREE INQUIRY Climate of Fear Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence. BY RICHARD LINDZEN

Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock By James Lewis

[PDF] - Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth One-sided, Misleading, Exaggerated, Speculative, Wrong By Marlo Lewis, Jr.

Gorey Truths 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore. By Iain Murray

Chill out over global warming By David Harsanyi

HOT & COLD MEDIA SPIN CYCLE: A CHALLENGE TO JOURNALISTS WHO COVER GLOBAL WARMING SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? By Timothy Ball

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 By Bob Carter

Resisting Global Warming Panic By J.R. Dunn

A Necessary Apocalypse By J.R. Dunn

GORE'S HOT AIR FLAKY FLICK SUFFERS FROM 'TRUTH' DECAY by Kyle Smith

ALL THAT HOT AIR IS BAD FOR EARTH by Kyle Smith

Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth By Marlo Lewis

Gore's flying visit questioned

Group questions level of energy use at Gore home High electric billing records show 'green power' also was purchased By ANNE PAINE

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth” Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

GORE CRITICIZED FOR HIGH ENERGY BILL

Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- $30,000 utility bill

Gore Responds to Charges His House Uses Too Much Electricity

A Modest Proposal to Eco-Celebs Clarice Feldman

Green Power Switch®

Gore may get doctorate By Elena Rozwadowski

Al Gore rains on his party Andrew Bolt

Celebs Who Claim They're Green but Guzzle Gas

Citadel, Shaw, Tudor Shun Global Warming as Short Sales Climb

Say what? The report on global warming you didn't hear about BY TARA SERVATIUS

The IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists By Marc Sheppard

Global warming activists turn storms into spin

FOX News Poll: Most Americans Believe in Global Warming By Dana Rohinsky

Global Warming Effects Could Be Seen in 10 Years Giant Mirrors to Deflect Sun Suggested as a Possible Solution

AMS CERTIFIED WEATHERMAN STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION

Remember Global Cooling? Why scientists find climate change so hard to predict. By Jerry Adler

[PDF 1975] - Newsweek: The Cooling World

Amazing Mars picture show planet's 'dramatic climate changes'

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph

On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed! By David Asman

Who's Afraid of Global Warming? By J.R. Dunn

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

Del. global warming skeptic stands pat State climatologist on opposite side of governor in court case By JEFF MONTGOMERY

Del. scientist's view on climate criticized Ties to big oil, industry-funded lobbies draw criticism By JEFF MONTGOMERY

NOT THAT SIMPLE GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW By ROY W. SPENCER

Al Gore, Global warming, Inconvenient Truth Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe "The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists By Tom Harris

Harper's letter dismisses Kyoto as 'socialist scheme'

AEI Critiques of Warming Questioned Think Tank Defends Money Offers to Challenge Climate Report By Juliet Eilperin

Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural, Moderate

The real deal? Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists Lawrence Solomon, National Post

Climatologist Timothy Ball sends PhD to Canada Free Press By Judi McLeod

Global Hot Air Greenhouse hysteria. By Thomas Sowell

Global Hot Air: Part II By Thomas Sowell

Global Hot Air: Part III by Thomas Sowell

Climate change: our fault, or cosmic consequence? JAMES MORGAN, Science Reporter

Global warming is a theory, not scientific fact By PETER WORTHINGTON

AMERICA REACTS TO SPEECH DEBUNKING MEDIA GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM

Global warming 'over-hyped'? By Christina Bellantoni

Media climate By Greg Pierce

Al Gore full of hot air: Klein, Gore bashes oil sands development By FRANK LANDRY

Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth By Robert J. Samuelson

Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity Drudge Report

Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planet By Brad Knickerbocker

Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry By Marc Morano

Spokesman for U.S. senator says global warming skeptics are 'demonized'

Will the sun cool us? LAWRENCE SOLOMON

No change in political climate By Ellen Goodman

Global-warming skeptics cite being 'treated like a pariah' By Eric Pfeiffer

Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff VINCE PATTON

Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming By Dennis Byrne

Inconvenient Kyoto Truths George F. Will

Global Warming Skeptics Shunned By Fred Lucas

Global Warming: Just Another Liberal Orthodoxy Chris Adamo

Cleveland's weather wizards downplay global warming Michael Scott

Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions

The "carbon sink" and global warming James Lewis

More Hot Air on Global Warming By Roger Aronoff

Flights of Fancy by Gregg Easterbrook

Hollywood Golightly An interview with Hollywood eco-crusader Laurie David By Amanda Griscom

Who is Laurie David

Can't stand the heat? Laurie David wants you Ray Richmond

Why is global warming a forbidden topic for most TV weather reporters? Climate change is "controversial" and bad for ratings. By Linda Baker

Kyoto is pointless, say 60 leading scientists By Philip Sherwell

What about the left-wingers who put politics over science? Jay Ambrose

Experts question theory on global warming Anil Anand

The Executive Ranch The scoop on Bush's Texas getaway By Umbra Fisk

Prairie Chapel Ranch From Wikipedia

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I

Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II

The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III

Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV

The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V

The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI

Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII

The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX

Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X

End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI

Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII

Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII

Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists By JULIE WHELDON

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Global-warming theory and the eugenics precedent By John Linder

'Hannity & Colmes' Lists More Than 70 Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Hysteria Show proves case isn't closed, discusses major new documentary. By Dan Gainor

Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's By Randy Hall

All those scientists may still be wrong By Martin Livermore

Global Warming will make you healthy and sexy By James Lewis

Profit of Doom - Bill Hobbs

Carbon credits: indulgence or commutation fee? Thomas Lifson

Valentine bouquets 'are bad for the planet' By Nicole Martin

Global-warming theory and the eugenics precedent By John Linder

Sun Responsible for Global Warming

[XLS file] - Skeptic Scientists

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up' By Fred Langan in Toronto and Tom Leonard

Global Warming Is Not a Crisis OPINION By PHILIP STOTT

Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth

GLOBAL 'SUNSCREEN' HAS LIKELY THINNED, REPORT NASA SCIENTISTS

Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'

Hummer Greener Than Prius?

UK (C4) Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle

Al Gore's Science Fiction A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth by Marlo Lewis, Jr.

[PDF] - Al Gore’s Science Fiction A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth By Mario Lewis, Jr.

[PDF] - A Skeptic’s Primer on Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth One-Sided, Misleading, Exaggerated, Speculative, Wrong By Marlo Lewis, Jr.*

[PDF] - Some Convenient Distortions A Brief Guide to Distortions, Misleading Statements, Exaggerations, and Errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth* By Marlo Lewis, Jr.†

Gore plan will harm us all By MARLO LEWIS JR

Czech leader Klaus fights global warming 'religion'

NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records

AL'S WARMING LIES & THE REAL 'INCONVENIENT TRUTH' By IAIN MURRAY

 

 

Here you'll find a link to every one of the above story's

 

http://www.schnittshow.com/globalwarming.html

[PatPatPatSack]

Let's be brutally clear on one thing, though: NOTHING Al Gore has done is science. Nothing. At best, it's politicking based on science. At worst, it's propaganda based on science.

 

Personally, I think Gore's BS qualifies as religion, being as it is defined as unfalsifiable and untestable. But it's certainly not science.

 

Anytime you set yourself up as Prophet or ideological leader, you become more akin to an evangelist than to a scientist.

 

Now I might respect Al for it and view his reasons as being sincere, and you might feel otherwise and view him as having more sinister, or ulterior motives.

 

That's certainly more in the opinion camp than the science camp. You saw the movie, you came away with an opinion way way or the other. I would not call your opinion stupid. Our original discussion, that I have now beat to death, was over the issue of GW in general. Human caused or not. And whether or not the body of evidence was junk science.

[Alaska Darin]

Anytime you set yourself up as Prophet or ideological leader, you become more akin to an evangelist than to a scientist.

Which, of course, ignores the fact that Gore is NOT A SCIENTIST in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

Now I might respect Al for it and view his reasons as being sincere, and you might feel otherwise and view him as having more sinister, or ulterior motives.

There's your gnat balls trying to show themselves. You either respect Mr. Gore or you don't. Why be wishy-washy about it?

That's certainly more in the opinion camp than the science camp. You saw the movie, you came away with an opinion way way or the other. I would not call your opinion stupid. Our original discussion, that I have now beat to death, was over the issue of GW in general. Human caused or not. And whether or not the body of evidence was junk science.

There's plenty of evidence out there in science, from respected and published Climatologists. Of course, the media doesn't report their views. I wonder why that is. Couldn't be "if it bleeds, it leads", could it?

[PatPatPatSack]

Really? You mean because there's no one out there questioning the gathering of the temperature data or the biases in allowance for "Urban heating"? Because you'd be wrong on both counts. Oh, but 90% of the science "community" whose increased funding pretty much depends on this being serious business, all agree that it's getting warmer (as long as the charts don't go back a whole lot further) and now have made the leap to "humans are causing it" (which you linked but aren't apparently now behind).

 

 

 

Again, I ask: Where are the double blind studies on "Global Warming"?

And you've got the balls of a gnat. Since no one has refuted that statement, it's also now law. I can live with being a "diick" and a "dick". Especially considering the source.

 

 

 

None of the things I've posted are term papers. They are each from accepted scientific research in the field, including papers from the same entity you used, that only 5 years ago said pretty much the opposite of what they're now saying.

 

Huh? How can I be wrong on both counts. Those aren't my counts. I only have one proposition here. And you constantly keep bringing up the human factor. It's not necessary. I'm trying to keep this simple for you. But I think we are closing in on your answer which is - No, there is no Global Warming. All studies are flawed or biased. Your definition of science includes a double blind study. And how you conduct one of those I'd like to see. Cool. That's where you stand. I think. You should directly confirm it or not.

 

Balls of a gnat. Are you saying I'm not up to challenging you directly? Or are you saying I'm not accepting a pistol duel? Or are you saying because I don't rant that somehow I am less of a man. I think I am more of a man because I have the better argument. And because you have lost this argument in spite of your asking stupid and unrefineded questions. I have spoken directly to the issue. You haven't.

 

Oh and BTW. I've proven you are a dick. You haven't proven I have balls of a gnat.

[PatPatPatSack]

Which, of course, ignores the fact that Gore is NOT A SCIENTIST in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

 

There's your gnat balls trying to show themselves. You either respect Mr. Gore or you don't. Why be wishy-washy about it?

 

There's plenty of evidence out there in science, from respected and published Climatologists. Of course, the media doesn't report their views. I wonder why that is. Couldn't be "if it bleeds, it leads", could it?

 

Jeesh.

 

I ask the gallery. Is there any one else out there that didn't understand what I just wrote? Why would I ignore the fact that Gore is not a scientist? He isn't is he? Did I say he was? Didn't I just agree with the poster that Al was being a prophet and ergo - more evangelist than scientist? Man you are impossible. You may be a diick, but you usually have good arguments. Not this time. You are just disintegrating into a puddle of mush.

 

I don't suppose we are getting anywhere...

[GG]

Jeesh.

 

I ask the gallery. Is there any one else out there that didn't understand what I just wrote? Why would I ignore the fact that Gore is not a scientist? He isn't is he? Did I say he was? Didn't I just agree with the poster that Al was being a prophet and ergo - more evangelist than scientist? Man you are impossible. You may be a diick, but you usually have good arguments. Not this time. You are just disintegrating into a puddle of mush.

 

I don't suppose we are getting anywhere...

 

I thought that the gallery was fairly unequivocal. If you didn't mean to imply that Gore wasn't a scientist nor using science to back his cause, why did you bring up the comparison between an evangelist and a scientist, when the post you responded to specifically chided Gore for using the pretext of science to further his manbearpug hunt.

 

Perhaps you should change your name to TapTapTapDance. What is your point anyway? You don't want to admit that you carry Gore's luggage for his conclusion of global warming, yet you expect an answer to your nebulous question of what is science? What definition of science do you want? I don't think there's much dispute over the warming trend. The disputes are the causes, severity and potential remedies.

[Alaska Darin]

Huh? How can I be wrong on both counts. Those aren't my counts. I only have one proposition here. And you constantly keep bringing up the human factor. It's not necessary. I'm trying to keep this simple for you. But I think we are closing in on your answer which is - No, there is no Global Warming.

My position is the same as it's always been: No one actually knows enough about the variables and the "accepted" method of calculation is incredibly flawed by the human factor. I guess all the stuff I've put out there is confusing. It should be, it's a huge topic, and our "scientists" are barely able to scratch the surface. Which makes the conclusions and resulting fear mongering that much more ridiculous.

All studies are flawed or biased.

Wrong again. It's the conclusions I have a problem with. There are certainly some studies that are flawed and biased, which is very obvious when the data is interpreted.

Your definition of science includes a double blind study. And how you conduct one of those I'd like to see. Cool. That's where you stand. I think.

You mean putting two unbiased groups together, not allowing them to ever meet one another, with the data available and seeing what they come out with is a tough concept for you?

You should directly confirm it or not.

You're in no position to make demands.

Balls of a gnat. Are you saying I'm not up to challenging you directly? Or are you saying I'm not accepting a pistol duel? Or are you saying because I don't rant that somehow I am less of a man. I think I am more of a man because I have the better argument. And because you have lost this argument in spite of your asking stupid and unrefineded questions. I have spoken directly to the issue. You haven't.

No, you have the balls of a gnat because you're a wishy-washy guy when called out. It's cool that you're declaring yourself the victor. That's new and pretty novel.

Oh and BTW. I've proven you are a dick. You haven't proven I have balls of a gnat.

I care why?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Gore's point is that HUMANS are the cause of global warming.

 

That's where he's flat-out wrong.

[PatPatPatSack]

I thought that the gallery was fairly unequivocal. If you didn't mean to imply that Gore wasn't a scientist nor using science to back his cause, why did you bring up the comparison between an evangelist and a scientist, when the post you responded to specifically chided Gore for using the pretext of science to further his manbearpug hunt.

 

Perhaps you should change your name to TapTapTapDance. What is your point anyway? You don't want to admit that you carry Gore's luggage for his conclusion of global warming, yet you expect an answer to your nebulous question of what is science? What definition of science do you want? I don't think there's much dispute over the warming trend. The disputes are the causes, severity and potential remedies.

 

I must not be a very good writer.

 

Gore has become a prophet. A man with a vision. A person with a set of ideals, reasons, and what you should do's. That is similar to religion. My hats off to him for taking the time and the flak. He states his case better than I could. You asked if that wasn't religion. I agreed it sure sounded like it. He may buttress his arguments with science, but he himself is not a scientist. Just like a salesman is not an engineer. Different jobs.

 

But I don't want to argue with you guys about Al Gore's motivations or his facts. That discussion obscures the real discussion. You weighed in on my question. You said that there is not much dispute over the warming trend. That is one vote cast toward that. You then are a yea. AD I think is a nay. I am a yea.

 

"The disputes are the causes, severity and potential remedies." I am with you 100%. And that is a huge dialog for science to still continue to test and figure out. And for policy makers to figure out during and after. And I don't want to touch it because the tone is way too shrill.

 

But we still have some folks who actually dispute this warming trend. Right here on our show. AD disputes it on the basis that it is all junk science.

 

We are down to brass tacks here. Are you a yea? Or a nay?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

"The planet has a fever!" - Manbearpig

 

Oy vey.

[GG]

I must not be a very good writer.

 

Gore has become a prophet. A man with a vision. A person with a set of ideals, reasons, and what you should do's. That is similar to religion. My hats off to him for taking the time and the flak. He states his case better than I could. You asked if that wasn't religion. I agreed it sure sounded like it. He may buttress his arguments with science, but he himself is not a scientist. Just like a salesman is not an engineer. Different jobs.

 

But I don't want to argue with you guys about Al Gore's motivations or his facts. That discussion obscures the real discussion. You weighed in on my question. You said that there is not much dispute over the warming trend. That is one vote cast toward that. You then are a yea. AD I think is a nay. I am a yea.

 

"The disputes are the causes, severity and potential remedies." I am with you 100%. And that is a huge dialog for science to still continue to test and figure out. And for policy makers to figure out during and after. And I don't want to touch it because the tone is way too shrill.

 

But we still have some folks who actually dispute this warming trend. Right here on our show. AD disputes it on the basis that it is all junk science.

 

We are down to brass tacks here. Are you a yea? Or a nay?

 

You're a much better dancer than a writer. Even as you admit that there's still ongoing debate among the scientific community about global warming, you waste no time praising Al Gore's efforts to highlight a problem that you admit may not even exist.

 

So, do you want that cookie now or later?

[PatPatPatSack]

My position is the same as it's always been: No one actually knows enough about the variables and the "accepted" method of calculation is incredibly flawed by the human factor. I guess all the stuff I've put out there is confusing. It should be, it's a huge topic, and our "scientists" are barely able to scratch the surface. Which makes the conclusions and resulting fear mongering that much more ridiculous.

 

Wrong again. It's the conclusions I have a problem with. There are certainly some studies that are flawed and biased, which is very obvious when the data is interpreted.

 

You mean putting two unbiased groups together, not allowing them to ever meet one another, with the data available and seeing what they come out with is a tough concept for you?

 

You're in no position to make demands.

 

No, you have the balls of a gnat because you're a wishy-washy guy when called out. It's cool that you're declaring yourself the victor. That's new and pretty novel.

 

I care why?

 

Actually your position is changing. At first you discounted all GW research as junk science. Now you have updated that to suggesting that the problem is too intractable for science. And you have upgraded junk science to "science" (with quotes). That is wishy washy. Therefore it must be you with the gnat balls.

 

I don't recollect your calling me out, as if you somehow got my goat. I believe I continue to restate my original proposition, though from here out I will leave out the name calling. Hope you don't find that too wimpy.

 

But I am in the position to make demands. You need to back up your spew. You can't. You still won't give me a yea or a nay on the most simple question of all. I not only demand it, your unwillingness to show what you think is because it is a pretty weak position. And one you don't even believe yourself. Go ahead, say it. Say there is NO Global warming trend. Say that everyone who thinks so is wrong.

 

C'mon mr. balls o'steel. Al Gore isn't here to beat up on.

 

and then I'll shut up. I'm even getting tired of listening to me...