Environment
Students Strip Down in Public to End Global Warming
- Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:04pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
A group of Canadian students recently stripped down in the lunch room in order to stop global warming. You’re right, it doesn’t make much sense:
(H/T: Stephen Gutowski)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 597 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 420 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 393 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 378 Comments
Faith
Arab-Muslim Character to Join DC Comics‘ ’Green Lantern’ Series Read More- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 420 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 393 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 420 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (472)
KILLACOMMIE4MOMMY
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:19pmThey are Canadian, so they dont matter.
Who cares what they think.
Report Post »Legal Immigrant
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:58pmPay attention to Canada. The Socialist system that exists there is what America will get if you don’t reign in the Progressives here.
Learn from other people’s mistakes.
Report Post »jowettusmc
Posted on June 6, 2012 at 4:34pmDid it work???
Report Post »deadpammy
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:19pmAt least they could have played better music. Wonder how warm it is right now in Canada, I’m right below them and it is only 35 here today, damn, guess I’ll put my bikini on.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:23pmWhat are you talking about? The opening song by Phoenix rocks.
Report Post »moriarty70
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:34pmI looked into where this was, since the decore looked familar. It was at U of Guelph (just over an hour from me) in late November, it was actually pretty warm then.
Gotta say though, this is just one reason I’m proud to be Canadian. No matter what we protest, we have fun doing it. Even some of the G-20 proteters were calling on the cops to dance.
Report Post »a_bailey11BangBang
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:18pmpublic schools… can’t even teach common sense
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:18pmJonathan Seidl apparently is not very bright. The students in the video are stripping down to PROTEST inaction on global warming, not to actually reduce global warming. So it does make sense. Also, the idea of stripping down to hot summer clothing (i.e., bathing suits) is the right symbolism for such a protest. Stop being so intentionally ignorant about the protest. Finally, given the overwhelming data showing man’s impact on the climate, it makes perfect sense for young people to be protesting inaction, which includes the GOP Congress in the US planning to table forever any US action on climate chnage. So the substance, symbolism and timing of the protest all make sense. Only those putting their head in the sand like Seidl, by choosing to remain wilfully ignorant about the costs of inaction, not to mention by trivializing the issue with such dense comments, are demonstrating behavior that does not make sense.
dkhartman
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:28pmABC – can you explain this part?
Finally, given the overwhelming data showing man’s impact on the climate, it makes perfect sense for young people to be protesting inaction, which includes the GOP Congress in the US planning to table forever any US action on climate chnage.
Report Post »Psytoxic
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:35pmC’mon DK, you haven’t heard all the “facts” about man causing the Earth’s constant change in temperature? I bet you also haven’t heard about the “fact” that ostriches bury their heads in the sand.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:36pmSure. THere have been multiple literature surveys of scientific research on climate change in the last decade and all of them have concluded that the vast majority of research on the subject has concluded that man made global warming exists, is accelerating and is a security threat to the US and most of the world. The Pentagon has produced studies stating the threats to the US and now have war scenarios around conflicts arising from man made climate change. Our nation’s leading defense labs, one of which I visited personally, have major programs in place to model climate change and have reached the same conclusions–and before you say it, these folks working there would make twice as much money working in the private sector but choose to do this research because they know how important it is. If you want to see summaries of the scientific research surveys, you can find them at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/klaus-martin-schulte-consensus.htm
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:04pmyou are hereby being charged an idiot tax…………..to pay for all of the man- made idiots that taught you
please report and bring your bank account numbers
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:09pmsurveys are not evidence or proof, but an accumulation of opinion
you my friend are being lied to
Report Post »Psytoxic
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:15pmABC, there is a difference between “Humans cause climate change” and “Humans affect climate change”. While I agree with the latter, the first is just plain wrong and has no scientific backing. Of the roughly 186 billion tons of CO2 emissions each year, humans contribute to 6 billion tons. That’s a lot. That also leaves 180 billion tons of CO2 each year that Mother Nature caused.
Report Post »Psytoxic
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:40pmIgnore the “facts” in the second half of the above statement. Can’t find the site I found them on and other sites are showing that the numbers are faulty.
Report Post »catndahat
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:42pmThink the protest worked?
Report Post »Psytoxic
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:49pmAlthough while I was trying to find accurate numbers I decided to look on the site you posted twice above. Even though they skirt the question that is also the heading of the article, I found the comments pretty interesting. Doesn’t look like a consensus to me.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:21pmPsychosis is right. Surveys are not scientific research. But my citing them is not meant to substitute for that research, which also exists in ample supply. The mention of surveys is merely to overturn the deniers’ lie that most scientists do not believe in man made climate change, which is obviously not true. You are being lied to…by the global warming deniers.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:26pmPsytoxic, no one serious is claiming that there is not an underlying natural variation in climate. Those worrying about global warming worry about human impacts on top of the natural variations. As for your claim that the issue of natural vs. man made carbon dioxide emissions are being skirted, this is an absurd claim. The cite I referenced and you read shows mathematically what the accumulated amounts of CO2 put in the atmosphere by mad are. There is no skirting of the issue but only definitive (and unfortunately large) numbers showing the impacts. How this is skirting the issue is beyond me. Perhaps you should read the information a second time…
Report Post »Psytoxic
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:40pmSo there is a natural variation in climate change. Your proposal then is to stop man made changes of the natural variation? Really the fastest way to accomplish that would be for the human race to just kill ourselves. That would be the right thing to do for the Earth since we cannot exist without affecting the environment at all.
Oh, did you read the comments on that page?
Report Post »donfield
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 6:51pmABC,
Here is a site to enlighten you. Al Gore’s idiotic statements should be enough to make you start to question your leaders. Remember, he thinks the center of the earth is MILLIONS of degrees. He makes it up as he goes along. His documentary has been completely disproven. The predictions these people have made have ALL been wrong. They are in Cancun right NOW (how large of a carbon footprint did they make flying there in private jets) saying rules shouldn’t be applied to developing nations so they can try to thrive, only wealthier nations should have to cut back. If this is life or death for our planet, they should want EVERYONE to cut back. Your side on this is comprised of hypocritical elitists.
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2006/08/01/global-warming-is-a-hoax-invented-in-1988/
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 8:22pmPsytoxic, that is a logical non-sequitur. The natural course of my body is to deteriorate and die, so I shouldn’t try to prolong life because I will die anyway?? What kind of thinking is that?? Also, it is important to note that the extremely warm temperatures of the past were usually arrived at over much longer periods of time, so ecosystems could adapt. We are doing in 120 years what the earth naturally does in thousands of years. That is a big difference that calls for humans to control emissions. And, by the way, we do not need to kill ourselves to mitigate emissions. We need to price the emissions to encourage conservation and pay for the damage we are doing–otherwise, we commit theft–and we need to allocate dollars and tax incentives to do research on carbon sequestration. The leading technology for this is in china–I know, because my friend has licensed it, and I can pass along the stock ticker if anyone wants a 10-******, but you should stop being mean to me–because that country is funding research while in this country the GOP blocks everything related to green technology…stupid.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 8:24pmDon, you do understand that what you wrote makes no logical sense, right? Al Gore could be a pathological liar, but his support of other people’s research on climate change would not be impacted by this fact. I like to say that if the first person in the history to declare the earth round was also a murderer and child rapist and pathological liar, it would not change the veracity of that accurate statement one bit. So stop with the anti-Gore rhetoric. It might work on stupid people, but not on me. Hopefully, you are smart enough to now see that it doesn’t constitute a disproof of climate research.
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 11:42pm@ABC, your reading comprehension is not bad per say, you just do not have any intention of admitting you push someone else’s lie. ABC is suspect; you must represent the MSNBC den of Commies.
The conspiracy that this Climate Change lie is tied to allows the world population to grow to five and a half billion and then murdering 4 billion so the rest can be enslaved by the few Soros type of gods. So don’t fret over emissions you will be eliminated soon enough by the very slime you speak for.
How do you justify the lie, are you making millions off GREEN, are you a Marxist? What ever and who ever you are this is not a site that will accept lies and propaganda like England, Germany, Russia, China, Kenya, Venezuela, Illinois and other two class entities.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 2:23pmNoRoom, it’s not a lie. That you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are coordinating a vast conspiracy and perpetuating a lie, knowingly and maliciously, is beyond credible. You can disagree with the findings, but they are being done in the same manner as scientists who deliver you new drugs, cell phones and jet aircraft. To claim otherwise, especially without support, is a foolish statement to make.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:17pmIsn’t global warming the best thing that could happen to canada? They would all of a sudden be prime place to live, instead of cold wasteland?
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:31pmActually, that is likely true. The only two major countries in the world believed to be net beneficiaries of man made climate change are Canada and Russia. But these are idealistic college kids who still care about other people–unlike 99% of the conservatives out there.
Report Post »MrObvious
Posted on December 4, 2010 at 1:57pmAh, where to begin?
1) global temps are currently dropping.
2) CO2 is plant food, and the USA’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is tiny. Even if 100 ppm were the real number of man made total CO2, which it’s not; as, the real number is much smaller. Think about all the factories, highways and power plants near forests or surrounded by greenery. Do you really think the plants are going to reject the CO2 because it came from man?
2a) CO2 is heavier than well mixed air. It mostly wafts, then sinks, until mixed or consumed.
2b) At the official CO2 monitoring station, Mauna Loa, Measurements are adjusted to account for local degassing of CO2 from the volcano.
2c) Mt Kilauea (about 2 miles away from Mauna Loa) puts out more CO2 than all the cars in the US combined.
2d) Between just those two mountain volcanos there is probably enough CO2 output to dwarf the total man made output of the US.
2e) If you add up all the active volcanos in that one state (Hawaii) alone, the total CO2 dwarfs the whole of man kind.
3) it would take lethal levels of CO2 (over 20ppm) to effect temps more than a ten-thousandth of a degree.
4) O2 holds more heat than CO2 does, and exists in much larger quantity.
5) NONE of the CO2 based charts match the earths average temperature variation when examined over time, in their entirety.
6) Solar variability charts DO match earths average temperature variation when examined over time, in their entirety.
7) Hanson’s prognostications have FAILED to come true – his hypotheses are busted.
8) The IPCC got caught, on more than one occasion, editing caveats to turn them into affirmations, deliberately including only the portions of the data that support their claims, including chopping chunks out of graphs that would disprove their claims, so the opposite appeared true instead – in other words FRAUD.
9) Climate gate – the released e-mails clearly show a pattern that indicates wrong doing on the part of these “researchers” and the IPCC. Attempts to pick at specific e-mails and argue that the message lacked context or related to unpublished work fail to address the overall tenner of these conversations and data exchanges. These guys have and agenda, and it doesn’t include the scientific method.
9a) Don’t forget Al Gore got a nobel prize.
9b) IQ wise Al would have a tough time beating out a pet rock.
10) Global Warming on Mars, and other planets in the solar system.
11) The medieval warmin period and little ice age, look them up dudes.
12) England once was a major exporter of fine wine; and, had some of the worlds best vineyards.
13) Greenland was green, hence the name.
14) AGW is about money, not the environment. Money from research grants, money from EU climate exchanges. Money from PACs.
15) Graft – Obama, Raines and assorted Soros flunkies started CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange), using, in part, funds and patents embezzled form Fannie Mae by Raines; then, Al Gore bought major shares in it; then, Obama lead the charge to push through Cap and Trade; then, it failed; then, Obama ordered the EPA to implement it anyway. CCX has officially closed down now. Expect it to start up under a different name with largely the same crew, if the EPA gets away with what it’s trying to do.
16) We have air conditioning, heating, bulldosers, and other technologies – when global climate change causes issues, we can deal with them – as long as we look at the facts honestly.
17) Man currently has ZERO control over global climate. It is what it is; and, we can’t control it.
18) We can accept whatever climate changes are actually occurring, prepare for and deal with them, or stick our heads someplace dark and pretend we have control over something we don’t.
19) The earth is headed for a cooling period, with less sun, we need more energy infrastructure, that relies on extractable energy, as well as transient sources.
Report Post »20) Wind and solar are transient sources. Fossil fuels and nuclear are extractable.
21) Read lines 16, 17 and 18 again.
22) Read lines 16, 17 and 18 again.
23) Read lines 16, 17 and 18 again.
24) Read lines 16, 17 and 18 again.
25) Read lines 16, 17 and 18 again.
pap pap
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:17pmFortunately they were mostly women. Very stupid women. Based on the way they were previously dressed it didn’t look to globally warm there.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:24pmWhy is it stupid to listen to the vast majority of scientists who have a preponderance of evidence on their side? Is it stupid to ignore your doctor? Those who deny manmade global warming have little science on their side. They appear much more foolish than these students.
Report Post »aeronut44
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:38pmWell ABC, please explain to me why we have had other periods of warming for millions of years LONG before I bought my V8 Corvette and my Land Cruiser? Did the dinosaurs fart too much?
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:59pm@aeronut44
Time machines. Ultimately libertarians and conservatives win the battle of ideas, society settles down into a long period of peace, and in due course they invent time travel. They go back in time to rape the land of natural resources and pollute the earth when only dinosaurs roamed. Surely you’ve seen the compelling documentary out on Cartoon Network called The Flintstones, right?
Report Post »dkhartman
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:00pmAero – I just burst our with a laugh at my desk here. That was funny..
ABC – actually, often times, I don’t listen to my doctor. Like the other day he told me it was not safe to take Vitamin C while I’m pregnant, which is quite ignorant if you ask me, so I ignore him and take it anyways. Also one doctor told me I’d have to be hospitalized because my bronchitis was so severe. I took a homeopathic route and cleared up a bronchitis issue I had for 5 years that a doctor couldn’t cure and it was gone in a week. So typically, I go to my doctor to get advice and in the end, I make up my own mind on what to do. Like smart people do. Rather than listening to someone who has supposed knowledge on a subject I educate myself and make educated decisions based on facts. See my doctor has facts that I couldn’t get rid of my bronchitis on my own with reasons a)b)andc). However I was actually able to do it. ALL on my own without the help of a doctor. Interesting huh? He was just so knowledgable and had ALL the scientific facts yet he was wrong… It’s amazing how educated doctors and scientists can be wrong at times.
Report Post »Psytoxic
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:24pmDK I think I love you.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:10pmHartman, that your doctor is fallible doesn’t mean that on average he knows way more than you about medicine. And if you were telling me that as a Christian Scientist or Jehovah’s Witness you were denying your child life-saving care because you do not believe the scientific facts that your child’s life is in danger–you know, because those scientists always are wrong or lie about what those spots on the X-ray mean; or, you know, Jesus won’t let my kid die; and the like–then I would say that you are doing something tragic and that such an action is more analogous to what is going on with climate change deniers. It is one thing to say that some of the climate science is mistaken, but it is another to claim without much science on your side that all climate research is fatally flawed and justifies total inaction.
Report Post »dkhartman
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 11:02pmABC —
I find it highly offensive that you‘d imply I’d put my child or myself in harms way by denying doctors care. I put my child in doctors care once, going against my own belief and I will regret that for the rest of my life. However, as I stated in this case, THE DOCTOR WAS WRONG! He wanted to put me in a hospital that would cost ME and my insurance money to cure something that I could do perfectly fine at home. Not to mention I DID cure myself at home. So useless? Yes I think so. I think it’s sad that CS and JW harm their children and family when God gave us these doctors to provide us with NECESSARY health care. Notice I said, necessary. Which, if you looked into it at all, doctors are not needed for the MAJORITY of what we use them for. Medical ‘experts’ get on the television every year about this time and tell us that over 50,000 people in US die a year from the flu. They will give you statistics and facts and they convince people that without the flu shot they are harming them selves and those around them. When researched further NO WHERE NEAR 50,000 people a year die from the FLU. About 500 or less die a year from the actual flu. That’s on the CDC website. Look it up I don‘t care to give into your ’produce the facts’ garbage. If you wanna see the facts go to CDC and look up how many deaths occurred in 2009 from flu. Anyways, yes even doctors with all that knowledge, yes more knowledge than I, can and will make up garbage facts to line their pockets with green. It’s not unknown. It happens. The ignorance comes in when YOU believe that people wouldn’t make up garbage facts to take your money. Just because a bunch of doctors come on TV and tell me I‘ll die without the flu shot doesn’t mean they are right and it doesn’t make their facts correct either. Same with these scientists. It’s far too easy to come up with garbage facts and like the doctors make it seem imperative to believe their junk science, or else…… we’re doomed.
To sum it up. If I believe my doctor is doing what’s best for me, I’ll take his advice. But I DO MY OWN research to make sure that he IS doing what is best for me before I’ll put my life in the hands of someone who can or may just want to line their pockets.
Hartman, that your doctor is fallible doesn’t mean that on average he knows way more than you about medicine. And if you were telling me that as a Christian Scientist or Jehovah’s Witness you were denying your child life-saving care because you do not believe the scientific facts that your child’s life is in danger–you know, because those scientists always are wrong or lie about what those spots on the X-ray mean; or, you know, Jesus won’t let my kid die; and the like–then I would say that you are doing something tragic and that such an action is more analogous to what is going on with climate change deniers. It is one thing to say that some of the climate science is mistaken, but it is another to claim without much science on your side that all climate research is fatally flawed and justifies total inaction.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 2:21pmDK, I never implied such a thing. In fact, I assume the opposite, which is my point. So why do for the planet that which you would not do for your child. Now, you say that the doctor is fallible, but you would not dismiss all medical knowledge out of hand on discredited counterevidence, as a Jehovah’s Witness often will do. Similarly, you should not dismiss all climate research out of hand on such weak counterevidence.
Report Post »Rn mom
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:16pmThe these “college students” should spend some more time in the library than on St Catherine’s Street, they have been duped into believing the lie. “Carbon Tax Me” girl….Speak for yourself!
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:30pmThe only lie is the one that denies man made global warming. You can keep saying that the scientists lie, but repeating the lie often enough only makes it true in the minds of morons. Try visiting a library yourself to learn how much evidence exists to show that man made global warming is a big threat. I bet you could not even explain the basic mechanism of global warming if your life depended on it. And if true, then you certainly have no businesses proffering an opinion on the subject. Just makes you look like a total fool. That you can vote to influence the issue endangers our country and the planet.
Report Post »bolec slodkie
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:37pmIf there is man made global warming what caused the global warming periods that are historically verifiable.
Report Post »Bronse age, Roman, Medievile, and contemporary. The contemporary period ended in 1998.
Psytoxic
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:03pmBolec, don’t forget the period known as the Holocene Maximum. It was the warmest period in human history, occurred between 7500 to 4000 years ago.
Report Post »Rn mom
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:07pmABC- First you can cut your posts in half by leaving out the name calling. Think about how much carbon credit you can accrue that way. Second, how are those ozone holes that the environmentalists told us were going to destroy us doing? I am not denying global warming- It is happening- It is also happening on every other planet in the solar system. Are you saying that we effect every planet in the solar system? Third, how’s climate gate going for you? Fourth, I love those new GE light bulbs spilling mercury into the environment. The only thing green about those bulbs is the obscene money made by GE and the gov’t to push the crap on everyone. Fifth, I think environmentalists suffer from a God complex. In my opinion, before we destroy this earth- it will destroy us.
Report Post »Rn mom
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:34pmI just read on a website that Canada listed CO2 as a poison-
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:51pmRN writes:
“ABC- First you can cut your posts in half by leaving out the name calling. Think about how much carbon credit you can accrue that way.”
Why don’t you call out those who called the protestors idiots? Please save the lecture. If the conservatives would practice what they preach about civility, then I’ll follow suit. In any case, it is irrelevant to what should be a factual discussion.
“Second, how are those ozone holes that the environmentalists told us were going to destroy us doing?”
Actually, it was good science that prompted governments to limit our freedoms and enforce the phase out of chemical emissions that were causing the problem. This is a story that should cause people to once again listen to climate and atmospheric scientists who warn against the impact of man made global warming. Thanks for proving my point.
“I am not denying global warming- It is happening- It is also happening on every other planet in the solar system. Are you saying that we effect every planet in the solar system?”
This is wrong and gets perpetuated by know-nothing skeptics all the time. See the following summary of research on this subject and how it doesn’t make your case:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
“Third, how’s climate gate going for you?”
There was a lot of press at Fox about the allegations and the supposed scandal, but the right-wing propaganda machine never reported the results of three independent studies into the supposed dishonest research occurring at East Anglia University. The results of all three studies conclusively showed that no material flaws in that university’s work on climate change, much less the rest of the scientific community. This is a classic example of how the liars about global warming operate. They do not report the facts. Only the fake controversies to keep you in the dark. You can read more at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
“Fourth, I love those new GE light bulbs spilling mercury into the environment. The only thing green about those bulbs is the obscene money made by GE and the gov’t to push the crap on everyone.”
I think the mercury pollution is deplorable, but it doesn’t disprove climate research.
“Fifth, I think environmentalists suffer from a God complex. In my opinion, before we destroy this earth- it will destroy us.”
Perhaps you have a psychiatry degree and can evaluate this mental problem, but my guess is that thousands of scientists who work in a disciplined and methodical way and publish in peer-reviewed journals are not all suffering from this disease, nor is their work systematically biased by it. Please provide proof otherwise. Until then, this unsupported and insulting opinion about scientists is hardly proof that their work is flawed.
Report Post »Rn mom
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:54pmDon’t believe me about solar heating, believe NASA……
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html
How about MIT http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
How about ABC http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1697309.htm
How about European scientists: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=33618
The ENTIRE solar system is heating up and this is based on actual scientific evidence. In the next few years our own earth will be undergoing major changes that ancients like the Mayans understood. These changes are cyclical and the science that supports it is thousands of years old. The “green movement” is just capitalizing on something that is doomed to happen anyway.
Taking credit for the ozone (O3) issue is laughable. The scientists at the time told us that it would take hundreds of years to repair the damage we caused in the ozone.and a whole bunch of the“sky is falling” scenarios. You wanna take credit for the gross overestimation of the amount of time it would take to fix the holes? It just points to how ignorant scientists are- especially since they are required by scientific inquiry rules to “reinvent the wheel” during each query.
Do not assume that I do not know scientific theory, I spent plenty of time studying it. I am knowledgeable in the discernment of the quality of scientific inquiry, and the necessary elements to a well constructed study which will l/t a well constructed hypothesis- Climate gate ruined much of your argument- once the scientists were found to be frauds, all the science that they did was rendered useless- and not worth the trees they killed to write up the papers.
Report Post »Rn mom
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:57pmOh, and I don’t need a psychiatry degree to render an opinion. My RN is enough for me to make real NANDA diagnosis’- and I would lean towards :Personal Identity Crisis or Knowledge Deficit as possible diagnosis’.
Report Post »Rn mom
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 8:02pmABC- Here are a few reputable sources that illustrate my point on the entire solar system heating up:
NASA, ABC, MIT, etc. Enjoy!!!
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1697309.htm
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6985/abs/nature02470.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html
“Actually, it was good science that prompted governments to limit our freedoms and enforce the phase out of chemical emissions that were causing the problem. This is a story that should cause people to once again listen to climate and atmospheric scientists who warn against the impact of man made global warming. Thanks for proving my point.”
-The same “good science” said it would take hundreds of years to correct the damage, which furthers my point that science, in all of its infancy, is unable to fully comprehend the data it collects. To say that O3 isn’t easily created by our own atmosphere, was part of the downfall of your “good science”. And there is no good reason for the government to limit our freedoms, that is the slippery slope countries like Germany went through- see how it worked out for them?
“Why don’t you call out those who called the protestors idiots? Please save the lecture. If the conservatives would practice what they preach about civility, then I’ll follow suit. In any case, it is irrelevant to what should be a factual discussion.” I was responding to your insults of me- this is a conservative blog space, if you want to enter into debate with me you would fare much better if you lay off the insults… and believe me, conservatives have not cornered the market on incivility, lefties are guilty of it too.
… right-wing propaganda machine never reported the results of three independent studies into the supposed dishonest research occurring at East Anglia University…They do not report the facts. Only the fake controversies to keep you in the dark.” I believe the left-wing propaganda machine has been far more guilty of only showing their side of the argument. Has anyone dared to talk about the natural solar cycles on the left? No, cause it won’t sell light bulbs.
“I think the mercury pollution is deplorable, but it doesn’t disprove climate research.” I am not willing to accept mercury poisoning as an acceptable alternative to anything, you admittedly cannot defend the practice, only to say it doesn’t disprove the theories. Oh, and remember this… you are defending “theories”… these aren’t laws. Why? because they are BY DEFINITION still refutable.
Report Post »Report Post » Rn mom Log in to ReplyReply
abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 8:17pmSo, just for the record, you are making a professional diagnosis as an RN that all the scientists concerned about global warming suffer from mental illness… Love it.
Report Post »Rn mom
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 11:43pmABC- That’s the best you got? and the answer “for real” as the whether I am making a blanket diagnosis is an obvious eye-rolling “no”. I can see where you would make that logical leap, as the left loves to catagorize, label, and put everyone into neat little boxes. Not everything is as easy as A B C.
So where is your leftie response to my website links, huh Greenie? Can’t argue NASA can you.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 2:12pmActually, RN I’ve got a lot more. I’m trying to be civil, seeing as I am held to a much higher standard than the conservatives who like to land nasty blows when they cannot win on the merits. First, we’ll set aside your personal, non-professional diagnosis that all scientists concerned about global warming have a mental illness. And I’ll try to treat you more civily than you do those earnest scientists who use the same discipline and scientific method that the doctors and pharmaceutical researchers that help you do you job demonstrate. The addition of politics into science is the vice of the conservatives on the right as much, if not more so, than any activity on the left. I for one recognize that science should not be politicized at all and try to stick with the facts.
As for the CFC’s, there is much that scientists didn’t know, but they made the right call. But for the warnings about CFC’s destroying the ozone layer, there would have been a much bigger problem, and the conservatives who reliably align with corporate interests and against environmental or scientific ones did not help the cause. The scientists were happily surprised that the ozone layer was repaired faster than their models predicted, but so what? That is not a meaningful precedent for climate change, which relies on a totally different mechanism. It would be like saying: Wow. This battery lasted longer than I thought, I guess I don’t have to worry about the mass in my breast or tumor in my brain. No connection. And no one is claiming that scientists are omniscient. Just conservatives implying that they know with certainty that there isn’t a problem. Very strange logic here.
Most important, you spill much virtual ink and leave a lot of links for evidence of the solar system warming. This is one of the many bogus arguments raised by non-scientifically literate skeptics that is easily exploded. Since you claim to be well acquainted with scientific method, I am surprised you’d go for such an easy argument. That many planets with very different atmospheres are all experiencing warming, the implication must be that the sun is causing the problem, so it is out of our hands and we cannot be blamed for it and we shouldn’t do anything about it. I think this is generally the argument. The problem is that the scientists who are making those tentative conjectures about the climate change on various planets have one-millionth the amount of data to go on as we do in evaluating climate change on earth. Those scientists, whose methods are identical to those of earth climate researchers–funny, how you believe some experts but not others who do the same method of research and receive funding from the same sources…no hypocrisy or double standards going on here…–are very tentative in their conclusions. Moreover, the rates of warming found are not predicting the same solar activity, so it is very complex. Finally, NONE of those scientists are willing to call their findings counter-evidence to the global warming research done on earth. The astronomer at Lowell, Buie, is a former teacher of mine, so I know personally that at least one of the experts that you cite in support of your supposed debunking of climate researchers here on earth would not agree with the inference that you draw. More important, the earth also is in the solar system, so we can directly measure the impact of variability in the sun’s energy as it hits the earth and incorporate that into the models. As a result, your supposed rebuttal is logically flawed as a criticism of global warming. This is not because I say so, but because logic dictates that this is the case. It is an empirical matter for scientists to include any increase measured in the sun’s energy and add that to the models predicting forward change. We have been measuring the sun’s energy for some time, and have many methods to build a record going back for hundreds of years on that basis. So your argument really is irrelevant. Don’t believe me? check out this link for more:
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-jupiter.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-neptune.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Note that I use one website, since it is a repository for a large number of outside sources that are authoritative on the subject. It is also revealing that ALL of the counterarguments raised on this webpage are addressed at this site, which means that there is nothing new being raised by skeptics that hasn’t already been resoundingly rebutted by the scientific community. Finally, the site I reference has an open blog on the bottom where qualified scientists will have informed debates on where the current holes in understanding are, but these are not at the level of make-or-break, but over more minor questions of timing and minor variations in the predictions. To call the entire research effort into question with a silver bullet argument is not likely to happen, based upon where the debate amongst qualified scientists has moved. But since you are acquainted with scientific method, you already knew all of that…
Report Post »Rn mom
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 12:09pmABC- I concede that I am arguing with you in the “wrong spirit”. I have spent virtual ink retorting your climate change beliefs with an unnecessary vitriol. Maybe you are a sarcastic person in real life, and speak sarcastically to all people- regardless of them being left or right. Reading your posts (and the name calling) wound me up and I went after you a bit hard for something that is just your opinion.
I agree that politics need to stay out of science. There is too much temptation for corruption of findings with added political pressure. J
Again, I think you missed my point on the CFCs issue. Scientific method dictates that to be correct all elements of the conclusion must be verified and true. My observation that their time frame was way off illustrated that an element of their hypothesis was incorrect therefore their conclusion was incorrect. Those are the rules, right?
Where my entire argument leads to, isn’t inside the millions of papers written on this very debated subject, but rather the wisdom of forcing change to society based on it.
There are a lot of skeptics out there, and you must agree for good reason. We have found that there are senior members of the scientific community who have been caught defiling data to prove their ends. The websites you have linked me to (which, BTW, funny move on sending me to the baby corner of the site-LOL) are debating the merit of the global warming hypothesis.
What is a hypothesis?
Anyway, I still have much to say on this issue, but my kids are calling me and I need to go- I’ll pick it up later if I see a response. Have a good day.
Report Post »Rn mom
Posted on December 6, 2010 at 7:48amIn answer to my own guestion…a hypothesis is no more than an educated guess as to how something works.
So ABC, why do you want to turn the world upside down for an educated guess? The science is flimsy, even scientists themselves are unable to agree on the hypothesis. Scientific interventions so far have done very little to fix the problem and have introduced a new set of problems into the environment (ie, light bulbs). In all your passion to defend your science you have forgotten about people and the big picture.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:16pmWhat idiots, why don’t they just give up their damn money, and leave everyone else alone, of wait, they are thieves, not charitable people.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:28pmIf your pollution harms other people’s property, then your statement about not wanting to give up money to pay the damage is THEFT. Nice to see you advocating theft.
Report Post »dkhartman
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:43pmThat’s a stretch there ABC. I guess the next time someone lets a grocery basket slam into my car because they didn‘t put it in a return cart I’m going to write my senater for a ‘fund’ for grocery basket damaged vehicles.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:34pmHartman, it is not a stretch. It is the widely accepted treatment in economics and legal literature for negative externalities. Read the fourth paragraph under “Implication” in the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
Your ignorance is deafening.
Report Post »dkhartman
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 6:00pmYour ignorance is deafening.
is this all you say to anyone who says something that you don’t like? Hint hint, it doesn’t make me ignorant to disagree with you
Report Post »Oh, God!
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 6:11pm@ABC (aka already been chewed and spit out),
Report Post »Are you kidding me? Wikipedia. Wow, you need some more credible sources.
abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 8:16pmWikipedia also has a section saying the earth is round. I guess that fact is now not true since I cited Wikipedia to establish it. The fallacious logical thinking of people on this site is breathtaking. Honestly, how dumb can you get??
Report Post »roostercogburn
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 10:06pmYes, they are idiots, this whole global warming deal has been debunked many times, the libritards still have problems dealing with facts.
Report Post »MrObvious
Posted on December 4, 2010 at 2:01am@ABC – CO2 is plant food. At anything under 2000 ppm it’s nothing more than that.
It has no special properties to create more heat.
It doesn’t hold on to heat for any length of time, at those concentrations.
In fact 20,000 ppm of O2 holds on to more heat than does 20,000 ppm of CO2.
O2 exists at over 200,000 ppm.
Currently CO2 levels remain under 400 ppm.
It’s man made component is under 100 ppm, world wide.
Of that China is over 50ppm.
The entire US is under 15ppm – that’s NOT per year – that’s over the course of the last century.
Cap and Trade works by shuffling paper and buying credits on an exchange.
No actual changes in output are required. So that 15 ppm won’t go down, in any event.
All that will happen is $10 trillion USD being sucked out of the economy, and into the pockets of a select few (like Al Gore, Gorge Soros and President Obama, or whomever winds up owning the next Chicago Cimate eXchange).
Hope this helps put the numbers in perspective for you.
If you want to get some idea of why so many people have a problem with Cap and Trade, look up what our total anual GDP is, then imagine $10T USD sucked out of it.
Now also imagine, that – because; China has no intention of cutting emissions – Global man made CO2 levels would continue to rise anyway – even if the plan reduced US emissions.
Also, remember, that even after CO2 levels rise, the relative lull in solar cycles has already begun to cause a drop in global temperatures. The drop was somewhat masked by huge numbers of errors in the government’s temperature monitoring networks; but, when you look at the anomaly data, related incorrectly placed stations and incorrect extrapolations, that mask comes off. Many areas in the US have reported temperatures that compete with the coldest in recorded history, last year.
Both the North and South polar Ice Caps were growing durring their recent winters, and can be expected to again in their respective coming winters.
If you really want to worry about something environmental, how are we going to deal with all the left over mercury from all those used CFLs people are throwing out. They don’t always last as long as claimed; and, people just put them in the trash; as, there is no recycle bin for CFLs; not to mention the used Hybrid and Electric car batteries, that will begin reaching the end of their life cycle in large numbers soon.
Report Post »MikeinSC
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:16pmGuarantee you that at least one of the guys did it in an attempt to get lucky with one of the girls. I used to do a lot of stupid things if I thought it would get the girl… Damn hippies…
Report Post »CYCLONE
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:15pmAdd your comments
Report Post »churchdog
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:15pmidiots
Report Post »felina g
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:20pmThey swallowed the wrong colored pill. Oops.
Report Post »MikeD
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:15pmJust wanted to give a “shout out” to my wife….honey, thank you for homeschooling our children.
Report Post »AmericanWomanFirst
Posted on December 4, 2010 at 9:19amhahah! Thanks for laugh!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:14pmIt doesn’t seem to be working, there’s still global warming. Maybe we need even more pretty young college girls to take their clothes off? No time to question, the earth’s in balance!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:20pmhangs in the balance. Dang it.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:00pmThat’s ok Ghost you just got a little overheated:)
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:20pmI’m a man with a cause Kate! Sally forth!
Report Post »MrObvious
Posted on December 4, 2010 at 1:06amOk, we have now found the real way to solve global warming. Disrobe and enjoy the breeze.
Report Post »This may be especially effective for 18-30 year old females in good shape.
ebayer
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:14pmAlways been a fan of half dressed women table top dancers…
…but there’s a time and place for everything…this is just emabrrasing and meaningless
Report Post »RightUnite
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:14pmIck! Nasty, Nasty! Bunch of pasty fleshy fools!
Report Post »COMMIESSUCK
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:13pmThat little spectable probably caused the room to warm up a few degrees…
Report Post »dcwu
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:13pmInsouciance++
Report Post »Reagan/Demint.deciple
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:18pmABC , what good is going to do when we are the only country doing it ?? What you think China is going to follow suit ? what ,set an example ? rediculous.. cut it out , why don’t you and the doc go out and have a beer to discuss better wats to save the planet ? Me? I’m going to the store the long way in my SUV to get a pack of smokes..
Report Post »MrObvious
Posted on December 4, 2010 at 12:55amThe IPCC took the work of many honest scientists and tweaked the results to their agenda.
Report Post »Hanson has been debunked by father time.
Over 10 times more PHD scientists challenge the AGW dogma than support it.
The NIPCC is worth checking out as well – their arguments are backed up by evidence.
http://www.nipccreport.org
untameable-kate
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:13pmLook ma, idiots on parade.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:22pmIdiots are people who deny or ignore scientific facts. By that logic, Kate is a bigger idiot than the stripping students in the protest.
mrlogan3
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:27pmSame thing as the TSA lady, a call for attention. At least they had a cause, even if it had nothing to do with not wearing clothes.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:28pmEven worse than idiots who ignore facts are idiots who invent facts in order to push political agendas. Right ABC?
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:55pmOOOh name calling huh,ABC? I don’t care what these little imbeciles were stripping over it was still an idiotic move. I won’t debate you on the global warming hoax since the science disproving it is out there and you ingore it. Go thump your chest at somebody else.
Report Post »anigmanm
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:12pmwe succeeded we exported stupidity
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:38pmKate, you won’t debate me on the science since you do not know what it is. I have already linked to the definitive surveys showing conclusively that the science is on my side and not yours, so your refusal to debate is tantamount to a concession that you do not know what you are talking about. Your continuing to assert untruths makes you look very foolish indeed.
Report Post »Reagan/Demint.deciple
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:52pmI have an idea for ya ABC, why not invent something called cap and trade ??? This ought to fix the non believers.. If not the plantet first, no?. If we can’t indoctrinate them, then we‘ll hit ’em in the pocketbook, and spread it all arounnd the world..It‘s just too bad the Chinese won’t get onboard with us, aaww screw it, we’ll give them some of the wealth too… What do ya think ??
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:01pmReagan, actually cap and trade is one of the most efficient ways to curtail pollution. It worked exceedingly well in the late seventies and eighties to fight acid rain. It has had problems for CO2 emissions since the problem is not as localized as acid rain, but in theory it is a great solution since it replaces the decree of biased judges or regulators with the efficiency and flexibility of the market. As a Reagan accolyte, you ought to prefer such pro-market solutions.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:42pmABC I don’t choose to debate you because I have heard all your arguements before, call me however many names you want it just shows your immaturity. You are not going to convince any of us here that man made global warming exists in any great amount, give it up before you give yourself a stroke.
Report Post »Reason
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:55pm@ABC
‘Idiots are people who deny or ignore scientific facts.’
Report Post »What the!?
An idiot is a person with an IQ below 20. Stop redefining scientific facts.
Oh, and here’s your link: http://www.google.com
TennesseeConservative
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 6:07pmABC is right because he says so. Who can argue with that logic. You win every debate.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 8:14pmReason, you define the term medically, while I use it figuratively. But if you want to play semantic games rather than confront the fact that no warming skeptic here has yet to produce real evidence to call the scientific consensus into question, then help yourself to the sand that you are putting you head into.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 8:15pmTN, that is definitely not what I am doing or saying. I am citing the scientists and most people here are hurling insults or citing non-experts. I am still waiting for someone to at least find a qualified scientist on the other side (hint hint: Lindzen at MIT). Alas, I have to do your work for you…
Report Post »Resolved
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 8:33pmTo ABC, from a fellow member of debate teams.
Ignoring the fact that even supporters of supposed ‘green’ legislation like cap and trade have admitted that it will have little to no affect on the environment and is purely a redistributive measure, I decided to google volcanoes on a whim. You may roll your eyes at this, but we can all agree that volcanoes produce CO2, and A LOT of it. I had this whim because I once heard an unconfirmed report on a Discovery Channel documentary that a single volcanic eruption produces 300 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF CO2 than has ever been created by any man made machine ever to exist in the history of mankind. I have always been skeptical of Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming, and when I sat down to do the research on this, you can imagine my surprise when i found a Global Warming fanatic claiming that man kind actually spouted 400 times the amount CO2 in the atmosphere as volcanoes annually. Astonished, I proceeded to look deeper. But this isn’t enough for Global Warming touters, in particular Professor Jim Zachos of University of California, who began to talk about the devastating affects of volcanoes 55 million years ago, and how they increased the world’s temperature, forging whole eco systems, and forcing species to either adapt or become extinct.
Okay, so perhaps volcanic history has changed, and perhaps it doesn’t matter that 100,000 years ago, according http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html, the oceans and vegetation were producing 4000 times more CO2 than Zachos announced. It all seems somewhat suspicious to me. Even more suspicious that not too long ago, liberals were going on and on about Global COOLING rather than Global Warming, and their ‘facts’ were nearly as convincing… that being not at all.
The truth that I’ve found, owing to the new Global Warming Swindle film as well as other conservative sources, that Antartic Ice Core Samples show that the rise in CO2 levels lags behind rise in temperature by about 800 years, so even if man is trumping nature in CO2 production, it hardly matters to Global Warming. In contrast, Sun Spot and Solar Radiation activity almost exactly parallel temperature change on the Earth. It doesn’t take a PhD to see the obvious conclusion here. This film also sites evidence that, despite what I previously found, evidence still exist that CO2 emissions from nature are far greater than those coming from man or his machines. Sources for my findings include Prison Planet, The Counter Consensus by Professor Bob Carter, and a blog by Dr. Roy W Spencer. This research took me all of an hour, so it’s not like this is terribly hard to find.
So now that we understand that the THEORY of man made Global Warming is far more man made than global warming itself (at least in my opinion), is it any wonder why British Courts decided not to allow Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, to be played in schools without footnotes describing the numerous and grievous factual errors made within the film? The answer to me at least is pretty clear. And i did it without insulting anyone else’s research, short of calling one particular article “suspicious.”
Report Post »Resolved
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 9:00pmSorry for the grammar errors and the unusually quick pacing. I threw that together during my dinner break here at work, so i didn’t have a ton of time.
By the way, Untamable Kate Rocks (love your posts), A Doctor’s Labor is Not My Right is a hoot “You want me to cite a real scientific authority to prove that regions of the world can get colder after a year?,”and GhostofJefferson, what can I say, AWESOME. I’ve love all of you (well most of you) but I felt the sudden need to cite these 3.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 1:45pmResolved writes:
“To ABC, from a fellow member of debate teams.”
I was not a member of a debate team, and I do not really view this through that lens. Debates are about rhetoric and style points, but the science will stand or fail on its own. The discussion should be an examination of what the data says, whether it was peer reviewed, and whether it was produced and interpreted by qualified experts. We do not talk about doctors debating as they produce a diagnosis, so let’s not sully climate scientists with that either.
“Ignoring the fact that even supporters of supposed ‘green’ legislation like cap and trade have admitted that it will have little to no affect on the environment and is purely a redistributive measure…”
So the problems with cap and trade that cause it to have little impact on the environment relate to the specific problems of addressing a global problem with a regional solution. That means, the current cap and trade regimes cannot be enforced on a global level and have only been attempted in Europe. When 7% of the world’s population and less than 20% of total emissions are capped, it makes it tough to have an impact. The claim that it is a purely redistributive measure is a falsehood propagated by warming skeptics. Fighting the war in Iraq is a redistributive measure, but the same people crying foul about cap and trade do not mention that fact and would strenuously argue (correctly) that this was not the motivation for the US invasion. The same is true for a global cap and trade arrangment. Only a hypocrite would claim one and not the other.
“…I decided to google volcanoes on a whim. You may roll your eyes at this, but we can all agree that volcanoes produce CO2, and A LOT of it. I had this whim because I once heard an unconfirmed report on a Discovery Channel documentary that a single volcanic eruption produces 300 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF CO2 than has ever been created by any man made machine ever to exist in the history of mankind. I have always been skeptical of Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming, and when I sat down to do the research on this, you can imagine my surprise when i found a Global Warming fanatic claiming that man kind actually spouted 400 times the amount CO2 in the atmosphere as volcanoes annually. Astonished, I proceeded to look deeper. But this isn’t enough for Global Warming touters, in particular Professor Jim Zachos of University of California, who began to talk about the devastating affects of volcanoes 55 million years ago, and how they increased the world’s temperature, forging whole eco systems, and forcing species to either adapt or become extinct.”
So the impact of massive and frequent eruptions 55 millions years ago shows the impact that spewing lots of greenhouse gases into the air will do to th climate. I trust that you will accept that premise made by Professor Zachos. There is no denying that, although the mechanism for this type of impact on climate is actually different or partly different than the classic greenhouse effect. The problem with your analysis is your assessment of the relative impact of human CO2 emissions and the greenhouse gas emissions from a volcano. Human activity in the vast majority of years will outweigh the impact of volcanoes by 100 TIMES. Don’t believe me? The links to the definitive studies are here: http://skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
“Okay, so perhaps volcanic history has changed, and perhaps it doesn’t matter that 100,000 years ago, according http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html, the oceans and vegetation were producing 4000 times more CO2 than Zachos announced. It all seems somewhat suspicious to me.”
100,000 years ago, there was no human civilization beyond the hunter-gatherer phase. To use this as proof that we can support a modern civilization on this planet is rather foolish indeed.
“Even more suspicious that not too long ago, liberals were going on and on about Global COOLING rather than Global Warming, and their ‘facts’ were nearly as convincing… that being not at all.”
See, this canard about scientists predicting an ice age in the 70s is not true. The kind of consensus around global warming today is not comparable to the opinions of a couple of scientists quoted in the popular press. Even then, the number of scientific papers warning/predicting global warming outnumbered the scientific studies claiming cooling was the likely outcome. You can find a summary and links at: http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
“The truth that I’ve found, owing to the new Global Warming Swindle film as well as other conservative sources, that Antartic Ice Core Samples show that the rise in CO2 levels lags behind rise in temperature by about 800 years, so even if man is trumping nature in CO2 production, it hardly matters to Global Warming.”
First, when you use words like “truth” you give yourself away. There is no 100% certainty in anything in life, although faith-based conservatives have a hard time staying in reality on that one. But when you look to “conservative” sources for answers on climate change, you are going about this the wrong way. There are no “conservative” sources on which drugs are safe. Only scientific studies that are non-partisan. The very idea that scientific research is non-political in medicine but political in climate research is because conservatives have put politics where it doesn’t belong. They are either doing so because they see climate change as a threat to their tightly held belief that free enterprise is always good, or because they have been duped by corporate interests that seek to avoid paying for emissions controls. Either way, it is bad science to try to find “conservative” sources of “truth.”
Having said that, your claims about co2 following temp changes is falsely interpreted. While it is true that Science magazine (the greatest science publication on the planet) did publish data showing this reverse correlation, it also reported that the cause of it was the earth coming out of an ice age, which caused warming oceans to give up co2. The physics behind this are clear. It also reported that the co2 given up produced a positive feedback loop that caused more warming, which caused more co2 to be given up from the ocean sink, and so forth. The skeptics only report half of the story, to try to maintain their position. The reality is that the positive feedback loop is one of the things that worry scientists about an acceleration in warming as the ocean gives up co2. Your claim actually proves the point of scientists who worry about warming. See more at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
More important, the recent increases in temperature have followed co2 increases, so the recent data supports the scientists’ claims rather than yours. See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
“In contrast, Sun Spot and Solar Radiation activity almost exactly parallel temperature change on the Earth.”
This makes sense, since the higher energy from the sun correlates directly with a higher temperature, all else equal. However, it doesn’t disprove any of the science. And the variations in solar activity are already incorporated into the scientific models.
“It doesn’t take a PhD to see the obvious conclusion here.”
No, but apparently it takes more than a biased viewer who fails to understand all of the other science that is selectively omitted from a film made by folks with an economic and/or political agenda.
“This film also sites evidence that, despite what I previously found, evidence still exist that CO2 emissions from nature are far greater than those coming from man or his machines.”
That is not in dispute, but the natural sources of co2 emissions are balanced by natural sinks that pull it back out again. Only man’s emissions have no countervailing mechanism to pull them out and have net zero impact. That is why emissions controls or sequestration are important, so that manmade emissions can be like the natural ones and not cumulatively grow, creating deleterious impacts. Your brain naturally produces endorphins that are good for you but which are easily reabsorbed. Cocaine will produce abnormally high levels of endorphins that are not as easily absorbed and which do permanent damage to your brain cells because of their higher albeit brief concentration. No conservative would endorse the use of cocaine although the pleasure mechanism is entirely natural and the net amount of endorphins released by cocaine is much smaller than the net amount released naturally. it is the same analogous argument with climate skeptics, and it is obviously wrong. Dont’ believe me? check out: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
“Sources for my findings include Prison Planet, The Counter Consensus by Professor Bob Carter, and a blog by Dr. Roy W Spencer. This research took me all of an hour, so it’s not like this is terribly hard to find.”
Alex Jones, who runs Prison Planet, did not even finish community college, much less obtain a degree in the sciences, so he is hardly a credible source on climate change. Moreover, he has a clear conservative agenda, so he is biased against the conclusions of climate scientists anyway. The need to impose controls on emissions runs counter to his ideology, and he is not equipped to evaluate the science. Hence, he is not going to give up on his ideology when confronted with scientific information that he cannot evaluate much less trust. And because he is not an authority, his opinion should not carry weight with anyone, including you.
Bob Carter at least finished college and has a science degree, although a paleontologist is not exactly an expert on any key aspects of climate change. Nonetheless, he should know good science when he sees it and is entitled to question the assumptions and data used by climate researchers. The problem is that his arguments, as far as I can tell, are all ones that have been already disproven. I found someone who has systematically gone through his material and provided sources–some of which I frequently rely upon, so I know that they are good–to show that Carter is merely recycling old, discredited claims. He also receives money from certain dirty industries in the AUS/NZ area, which might explain his persistence on this issue. In any case, he is one scientists arrayed against many, many others with more expertise and research time. Some people do go to the chiropractor when they think they have a brain tumor, but most go to the neurologist. I know which scientists most people would consult. Check out the rebuttal at:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/12/spot-the-recycled-denial-v-%E2%80%93-prof-bob-carter/
Finally, Roy Spencer, a PhD in meteorology previously employed with NASA, has the closest thing to relevant expertise of those you cite. Unfortunately, meteorology is not exactly on point either, since it is not the same as a degree in physics, much less atmospheric science. You should try citing Lindzen at MIT to try to show some credibility here. But he has had experience collecting temperature records and does have a science degree, so it’s better than a college drop-out radio talk show host…
In any case, the problem with Spencer is that he is very well funded by all the industries that stand to lose money when governments force emissions controls. He is affiliated and funded by Greening Earth Society (controlled by Western Fuels–a big oil group), Tech Central Science (whose climate research is funded by Exxon and other oil companies), Heartland Institute (funded by lots of dirty industries in chemicals adn E&P), and the George Marshall Institute (whose climate research activities are funded by Exxon). Now, some have argued that the scientists are biased since they supposedly will only get their grants if they show warming, although all of those scientists can instantly double their salary by going to work for private sector companies, including those that pay a lot more money to hide the warming facts. In addition, the amount of money that major companies stand to lose if emission controls are required dwarfs the science research budgets that climate researchers are relying on. So, it is not hypocritical to call out Spencers obvious and rather large conflicts of interest that make the scientists’ ones look puny by comparison. Moreover, unlike those that ignore scientists and claim in ignorant blanket statements that they are totally biased given reliance on grants, I will actually address Spencer’s argument. Essentially, he is saying that there are feedback loops that cause the additional co2 emitted by humans to be mitigated. These would include high and low altitude cloud cover. The problem is that he has not shown that this is actually happening. When confronted with this, he argues that adaptation is cheaper. But cheaper for whom? Presumably his donors like Exxon. Beyond this he has not added any peer reviewed research to the debate. He maintains no climate model, nor has he raised any problems with existing models that have been validated by others. He used to maintain the satellite temperature measuring program for NASA, but when he claimed a cooling trend that contradicted ground and balloon based records, he was forced to admit that he had made mistakes with the data. Finally, he has gone public in his belief that evolution is false and intelligent design is accurate, which flies in the face of even more scientists than his climate change claims. His record and credibility is not that high, in my opinion. Again, you are better off going with Lindzen if you want to be a skeptic, but even then, you have much more evidence on the other side and still have to explain why it is “conservative” to take your chances with the only place humans can live when so much data warns the imprudence of this. Even the Department of Defense is now concerned, but “conservatives” want to take their chances. How conservative of them.
“So now that we understand that the THEORY of man made Global Warming is far more man made than global warming itself (at least in my opinion), is it any wonder why British Courts decided not to allow Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, to be played in schools without footnotes describing the numerous and grievous factual errors made within the film?”
First, Bernoulli’s theory of gases is just a theory. But it has accurately allowed us to build working airplanes. I understand what debaters do here: my beliefs are unsupported by are held with certainty, while scientists decades long work with much empirical support is just a theory, so I can safely conclude that I know more than the experts. To which I reply, those scientists should be allowed to make you do wihout medicines or cell phones or airplanes, since those are build on the basis of mere theories too. Second, Al Gore’s movie is not the body of scientific research on climate change, so whatever errors are in there or actions taken by UK courts are irrelevant, and it would be nice if you were intelligent enough to recognize this.
“The answer to me at least is pretty clear. And i did it without insulting anyone else’s research, short of calling one particular article “suspicious.”
Calling diligent and earnest scientists work suspicious is about the most insulting thing you can do to them. Relying on non-experts to do so adds to the injury, but no matter. Your conclusion, when placed in the best light, is that we should rely upon unknown feedback mechanisms that Spencer argues exist but which he cannot identify, or that we should just take our chances although scientists warn of major losses that even the Department of Defense is now war planning around. And you do this based upon holes you think you have poked in the climate research that have been widely discredited but still offered by a college drop-out radio show host, a non-expert paid by dirty industries in Australia and a tangential expert who personally collects more money from Exxon that would bias his conclusions than all of the climate experts at Lawrence Livermore Labs. You can do this, just like you can choose not to insure your house. The banks would not allow this and would say that you are not being conservative with your risk management strategy. It is troubling that when the stakes are higher than the mere loss of a house, the same people go from acting in a rational to an irrational fashion, blocking even actions that are relatively low cost in order to alleviate the risks. Calls to defund research and data gathering–as the GOP has done for satellite temperature collection–is reprehensible. But “conservatives” on this issue sit back and claim that they “know” with certainty that fire cannot possibly consume their house. This is laughable. But if you are comfortable with your knowledge of the “truth,” then there is little I can do to change your opinion. As George Bernard Shaw noted, one cannot use facts and logic to disabuse people of beliefs they have arrived at without facts and logic.
Report Post »Scorpio
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:12pmSince the Progressives can’t appeal to people through false facts, now they’re going to use nearly naked people to do it.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:26pmThe facts are not false. And I’ll crush you in a debate if you care to challenge that assertion. I’ve done it once before on the Blaze. After three days, no one laid a hand on my arguments nor produced one shred of documentable evidence to show that the climate models or state-of-the-art science on global warming is mistaken. The fools who deny are either paid to make up false facts or they are idiot partisans who do not let facts get in the way of their fantasy narratives. I assume you are in the latter category.
Report Post »bolec slodkie
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:34pmHere is my argument:
If one were to examine the paleoclimatological data with new eyes the peaks represent the bronse @3100, the Roman @2750, and the Medievil @1800 warming periods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
The temperature spikes have roughly the same periodicity as recorded temperature and estimates from 1100 AD. or about 1800M in depth. The scale for the temperature should be adjusted to match the last global waming spike that occured @1850 and ended in 1998.
Report Post »The problem is the really smart people who assigned the assumptions for “Age (BP)“ and ”Temperature (C)” forgot that they were assumptions and failed to measure the orignal assumptions against recorded data. If this observation is correct we are begining a 600 year global cooling cycle.
The greatest danger from global warming is that someone will believe it and plant palm trees in Deluth.
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:38pm@ABC
**The facts are not false. And I’ll crush you in a debate if you care to challenge that assertion. I’ve done it once before on the Blaze.**
I’ve not seen that particular episode of your time here, however, I can’t help but recall that when you and I spoke, your method of debate was to cite one non-peer reviewed study (without corresponding link), claim scientific validation from it for an entire sphere of human social activity, call any dissent incorrect and your view incontrovertible, declare any solutions to the issue except yours (under the assumption it was correct) to be wrong and arrogant, then you declared victory and disappeared.
If this is the level of “debate” you engaged in with so called “man made global warming” I‘m not entirely certain that I’m buying your claim, sir. You don’t appear to debate, you assert dogma based on unscientific principles (one study does not a conclusion make), preach fire and brimstone and condescend towards any dissent. Hardly debate really.
Report Post »mikem1969
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:41pmABC, if you ever actualy did real research you would know that global climate change is a natural planetary cycle that was going on before man and will continue after man. The libs and progressives are using this natural cycle to brainwash and indoctrinate our young into helping them steal money and redistribute it every where else. Prove to me that it is real. Take a look at the post from bolec slodkie above. That shows some actual research, something libs and progressives are geneticaly incapable of doing. History has proven that our planet has a natural climate cycle.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:57pmBolec, you need to read the article that explains that periodicity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
The Milankovitch cycles ARE included in the modeling work done by climate scientists. I have personally asked Julio Friedman, who runs climate research at Lawrence Livermore about these exogenous (i.e., natural) impacts and he produced several charts showing how scientists can differentiate between the impact of a shifted earth’s axis, solar flares, el nino, volcanic activity, etc. He showed what those signatures look like and how they differ from the impact of man made CO2 emissions. So to claim that this is not included in the models or their base lines is simply false.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:07pmGhost, you might have me confused with someone else. I have always used links when discussing this subject, since the information and studies are all publicly available, including summaries. On this site and in this discussion, I have tried to consistently provide links and only to scientific studies or reports about such studies. I take offense to the false accusation.
Mikem, I am STILL waiting for a shred of evidence (links and/or names) to support your opinions masquerading as facts. Either produce that evidence or concede the argument.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:19pm@abc
No, in fact you didn’t use links with me, you simply declared a study name and supposed results, and upheld that as definitive proof of the social theory you were propounding. Further, even with a link, one non-peer reviewed study does not a scientific conclusion make, as noted earlier, in fact one study can only at best be categorized as data gathering in support of a hypothesis and nothing more, conclusions drawn off any such study would be confusing correlation with causation, a big no no in the science world.
You can take offense all you wish, that’s something only you control, but I can‘t help but notice you didn’t mind calling me “arrogant” when I was trying to calmly and pleasantly find common ground of agreement with you, without a care about “offense” on your part. Now it didn’t bother me much, I don‘t take the insults of people I don’t know on the internet seriously, but I find it rather amusing that suddenly you‘re worried about decorum and have such a thin skin about something you clearly don’t remember. Oh well.
Slainte
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:32pmGhost, you are stalling. Either produce evidence to rebut my claims, which I have linked to, to clearly show that the majority of qualified experts are on my side. Or concede the argument. To play this game of making up revisionist history to undermine my credibility is so infantile. It only shows that you have nothing and wish to create distractions to hide that fact. if you cannot produce sourced counter evidence, as I have elsewhere on this page, then you have conceded the argument.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:53pm@MIKEM1969
Report Post »Mike – There you go again making sweeping generalizations – no all liberals or progressives believe that climate change is man-made. You sure do believe that liberals or progressives don’t have the ability to think on their own. Obviously you don’t know any. This is just rhetoric to cause the left and the right to hate it other. It needs to stop – we have interests that are the same. http://maboulette.wordpress.com
BBlaze2
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:13pm@ABC
Dude I hate to tell ya this but your method of “debating” consist of only siting enough to make yourself “seem” intelligent, and the rest is used to insult, demonize and declare yourself the winner. I am sorry but this is hardly a winning formula. Funny thing is you’ve only managed to make yourself look stupid. Now try to get your point across with out the insults and then we can judge if you’ve won this or any debate.
Have a nice day
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:32pmBBlaze, what I cite are links to peer reviewed scientific information that others have failed to dispute. So the real analogy about what I am doing is the following: the folks here insist that it is not raining, while I produce evidence (pictures, samples of the raindrops, etc.) and they continue to say it isn’t raining. In such a situation, calling them stupid is generous. I am not producing the evidence to look smart. Indeed, I didn’t author any of these studies, so it is no reflection on me. But to ignore the state-of-the-art knowledge without any factual basis to do so makes many other people look stupid. It is kind of like insisting on using leaches to bleed people with chronic headaches rather than taking modern medicines. People who use the leaches are properly called stupid. And so are most climate change deniers.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:41pmComrade ABC,
That’s exactly the point. The facts you use are faked and have been for a very long time. Can you cite a few real facts about cycles, sure anyone can, but when you use the real ones to bolster your false ones, you lose any credibility. You can argue until you turn blue, but knowing that the scientific community has been lying to us about this issue, means we will NEVER going to believe you guys again. If you want trillions of dollars to re-distribute wealth you had better find another way cause we ain’t falling for it.
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:50pm@ABC
Why? I’m reading down and seeing actual science inclined posters rebutting you and you simply ignore them. I’m not particularly inclined to post anything to you, as if it makes a point, you‘ll pretend I didn’t post, like you are with most who are taking your call seriously. Fact is, East Anglia ripped open the bodice on your entire charade, and now you stand naked before the world stomping your feet and insisting that you still wear the clothes of respectability.
And to top it off, you engage in constant ad hominem. Why would anybody wish to debate you in earnest? You’re not an inviting person, and any debate with you devolves quickly into you sneering out ad hominem. What’s the point?
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 6:08pm@ABC
Actually, people who use leeches are not stupid. In fact, medical professionals use them all the time. And you didn’t know that, but felt inclined nonetheless to hurl ad hominem. See why nobody takes you seriously?
Oh, btw, here’s the link to doctors and leeches. So much for your objectivity or “scientific” thoughts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Medical_Leech
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 8:10pmDave, saying that the many facts and citations and sources I provided were faked, without further proof, is just bunk. Either you state specifics with specific proof or you concede. The silence of your non-rebuttal is deafening.
Ghost, I have responded to every substantive comment or criticism on this page, so I don’t know what you are talking about. The East Anglia scientists were investigated by three independent groups and all three found no impact to the quality of research there or anywhere else on this issue. You are making up stuff that isn’t true if you continue to cite that supposed climategate story. See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm And you continue to fail to provide any counter evidence to overturn my claims. I will take that as an obvious concession that you are wrong. THanks for playing. Better luck next time.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 8:12pmI am aware that they are still used for certain ailments. But the bleeders referenced earlier included making cuts in the head with a knife to alleviate pain. This was done by people who did not understand anything about medicine, so it hardly discredits scientists, either then or now. That was the point of the piece. If the game is, find something that I say that is incorrect and it will call into question or discredit everything I have written or anything written by someone else that I have cited, then you can play that game with someone else. These are the logical ploys of a desperate opponent. Nice try.
Report Post »BBlaze2
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 8:33pm@ABC
The last few post are getting better but try to lay off the parting shots they tend to give people the wrong impression. Can’t really take you seriously if you insist on making your self look like a a**. Unless of course you mean to come off like an a**hole then by all means keep it up. BTW I have no opinion on the topic I just love messing with you cause of your attitude. heh.
Have a nice day
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 11:26amBBlaze, I would take your opinion of me seriously if you applied the same requirement of civilty to your conservative peers on this site. More ad hominem invective has been directed at me than from me. And my “parting shots” as you call them are actually all responses to other peoples’ harsh words, with a few exceptions where their stupidity on the issue is so breathtaking that I believe they deserve the harsh wake up call. I mean, what would you call a person who claimed in 2010 that the earth was flat?
Report Post »jagr1850
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:11pmin canada it must be global chilling …..who is indoctrinating those children……mother nature is in charge and the humans are not in charge ,,,,,,,
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:21pmMother nature in charge… Nice. Too bad science says otherwise.
Report Post »dkhartman
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:35pmYeah you know we darn humans just keep creating these earth quakes, hurricanes, and tornados. I mean as we all know, Bush intentionally sent Katrina to New Orleans cause he hates them blacks so much. We should probably stop the destruction. It’s harmful, you think?
Report Post »dkhartman
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:37pm** in reference to the ‘mother nature’ comment by the way.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:40pm@dkhartman
We’re also causing all the other planets to go through the same warming/cooling cycles. I suspect we have Humvee factories on most of the major planets and a handful of larger moons. Just a hunch.
Report Post »Quasimofo
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:46pmMan, those Canucks are some pasty white people. They could use a little more sun.
Report Post »HWT-Patriot
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:54pmABC For All your Ranting Trying to Defend Your Brain Washed Opinion Thats All it is is an Opinion. You can Post Links To all your Tree Hugger Websites. Just because Al Gore Said So is not a Good Reson to Throw All Logic & Science Out the window. For every Liberal Al Gore Cult Following Moron PHD You Find Someone Could Site Twenty to Debunk There BS Findings.
Do your self a favor Get of the PC & Get a Life Hell Find a Nice Goat Or Maybe a PolarBear settle down & Have Some Cubs “Cause I Know how much You ECO WHACK JOBS LOVE POLARBEARS” and DO US ALL A FAVOR HELL YOU CAN SAVE THE PLANT TOO KILL YOUR SELF CAUSE ALL THE HOT AIR & BS YOU SPEW HAS WARMED THE EARTH. If Not Just Go Away If i wanted to Read Liberal LIES & CRAP Id be readind MSNBC OR THE HUFFIN PAINT POST SO PLEASE JUST GO AWAY
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:04pmHWT, the ad hominem arguments prove that you have no substantive rebuttal. Thanks for revealing that to us all. As I said earlier, that a magazine called treehugger reported real facts do not make them instantly turn into lies. The person who rebutted Lord Monckton has superior scientific credentials, and Monckton has not rebutted them, so he lost the debate. And, unless you can do better, so have you. And your name-calling changes nothing.
Report Post »bullcrapbuster
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 12:52amABC…..hey bonehead………….Global warming is progressive Bullcrap. It is all about spreading the wealth and consolidating power. The earth travels through dusty parts of space and clearer parts so the planet cools and heats…..eb and flo. So we have progressive politicians that are going to change the earth’s climate. Nonsense!! It is fear mongering, plain and simple. No science needed to figure that out. And our saviors are still buying ocean front properties.
Report Post »Tri-ox
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:11pmThis appears to be some sort of “special school” – should these patients really be wandering around unattended?
Report Post »CYCLONE
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:11pmhope it feels good when the wind chill is 57 below… you jacka$$es…..
Report Post »bolec slodkie
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:24pmIf one were to examine the paleoclimatological data with new eyes the peaks represent the bronse @3100, the Roman @2750, and the Medievil @1800 warming periods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
The temperature spikes have roughly the same periodicity as recorded temperature and estimates from 1100 AD. or about 1800M in depth. The scale for the temperature should be adjusted to match the last global waming spike that occured @1850 and ended in 1998.
Report Post »The problem is the really smart people who assigned the assumptions for “Age (BP)“ and ”Temperature (C)” forgot that they were assumptions and failed to measure the orignal assumptions against recorded data. If this observation is correct we are begining a 600 year global cooling cycle.
The greatest danger from global warming is that someone will believe it and plant palm trees in Deluth.
abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:40pmScientists understand that cycle, caused by the natural shift in the Earth’s axis that is regular enough to model, and include it in their climate models. They are not nearly as dumb as you suppose they are. People who criticize scientists so foolishly should be denied the fruits of their labor. If you were denied modern medical care for making such comments, I think these lies would cease.
Report Post »Thomas Payne
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:55pm@ABC
There is a massive hole in the global warming/climate change debate. All of the computer models they are using does not incorporate precipitation and the amount that falls globally. Precipitation (in all forms) is the earth’s air conditioner. It is impossible to measure precipitation globally. That’s a HUGE piece of data missing from the models. They are forced to estimate. An estimate is a guess, and guessing is NOT science. Consensus is NOT science.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 8:05pmThomas, that simply is not true. The climate models account for water vapor and precipitation. In fact, the linkage between CO2 and H2O is a positive feedback loop that exacerbates the warming, rather than the opposite as you suggest. See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on December 4, 2010 at 7:43amWaiter……….There is a hair in my soup!
ABC………. isn’t there a Van Jones rally somewhere?
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:10pmI’m a firm believer in the right of pretty young women to undress in public. I have a long held, hard belief in pretty women undressing, regardless of the cause.
Report Post »Lincoln1
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:13pmMay I also join GhostofJefferson and echo his opinion
Report Post »Rn mom
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:17pmLotsa Freud in your comment. LOL
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:20pmI was thinking the exact same thing.
Report Post »Noumenon
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:20pmThey’re actually causing temperature to increase.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:27pm@RN Mom
Ya’ think? :)
Whenever I start waxing poetic about pretty young college women disrobing, I’m inspired by my muse to write a novel. No seriously, I want to take up my ink engorged pen and plunge it deeply into the pages of the document until my writing explodes across the paper in a flurry of inflamed passion.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:47pmToo funny:)
Report Post »Reagan/Demint.deciple
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:10pmUUm no doc.. I‘m saying he’s trolling pretty much like you I guess… Doc says ” Ladies stripping for the environment? By your powers combined, indeed … GO PLANET! :)(I’m not gay, so I didn’t catch some of the other stuff, sorry.) ”
Report Post »Besides ,with a comment like this what should I expect when someone doesn’t care about the American culture ??? You’re one of those people that watch Glenn but never follow what he says and then cry and say why me ? Anyway, like you said I have a right to say what I want..
Reagan/Demint.deciple
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:14pmBesides dick I mean doc, who said anything about stopping him from speaking?? I mearly said why try to explain the obvious…He has his beliefs and there are tens of people on here not agreeing with him..
Report Post »salvawhoray
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:09pmShoot them on site.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:03pmhuh?
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:23pmMaybe he means with a camera?
Report Post »Reagan/Demint.deciple
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:24pmUUMm people, Don’t even bother with ABC, that is what you call a bleeding heart liberal to the max, that will never change… Trust me, there is no hope so why try…
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:25pm@MrButcher,
LOL! Must have been a Freudian slip?
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:39pm@Reagan/Demint.Deciple,
ABC has a right to speak like everyone else.
Are you a Progressive instigator, trying to get the Right to censor opposing views?
Report Post »dkhartman
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:09pmUhhhhhh…..
Report Post »Handsome Pete
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:12pmIt makes me sad that our students are all being indoctrinated, rather than educated.
Report Post »Konservative PUNK
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:15pmThese kids are doing what they think their hippy parents/grandparents did. Way to go baby-boomers you paved the way for Sodom and Gomorrah to return.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:19pmHandsome, the overwhelming scientific evidence shows global warming is a threat. You are the one who has been indoctrinated with a wrong set of beliefs. Your comments would merely be ironic if they didn’t display tragic ignorance.
Konservative PUNK
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:21pmCanada should take their tuition assistance programs and buy carbon credits for these degenerates.
Report Post »Konservative PUNK
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:23pmYou better check those figures again ABC, even the UN admits global climate change is a hoax to redistribute wealth around the globe.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:25pm@ABC
Ooh, so sorry. No it doesn’t. The base numbers used to start and perpetuate the fraud were exposed as a hoax recently. It was all over the news, but maybe you didn’t have time to read it. After that of course a conference was held where instructions went out to go ahead and continue to claim the numbers are valid because too much was riding on global warming (man made) being “real”, even though the numbers were fake.
Sorry man. Though you knew.
Report Post »afroggy
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:30pmBut…..they aren’t that good looking.
If they’re average (which they are), what’s the point?
Report Post »BMartin1776
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:32pmWhat a joke global warming!! Umm curious when the planet was going through an ice age exactly how did it warm up? Who caused that global warming?
This has all been shown to be a lie via climategate and I recommend folks listen to the full speech by Lord Monckton from last year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0 Notice of this guy showing up at a climate event scares the liars under the woodwork like cockroaches!
This global warming thing is nothing more that a scam to make ppl like Al Gore rich. Who for the record as much as he loves money will not debate with Monckton who offered to make it a venue where Gore could make more money!!
Lies all lies and these fools are nothing but useful idiots. 56 men, our Founding Fathers, knew what had to be done and do what’s right, what about you? http://www.savingtherepublic.com
Report Post »mikem1969
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:34pmHandsome, you are correct.
ABC, get a freaking clue. GLOBAL CLIMATE change is a naturaly occuring planetary cycle that has been going on since earth was created. It is not man caused, it is a natural cycle that the liberals and progressives want to try and use to control people. Please either educate yourself, or comment somewhere else.
Report Post »Brad Wesselmann
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:36pmOur scientific institutions, aka colleges, are completely infiltrated with “scientists” that no longer value scientific method…what does this tell the logical mind?
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:37pmThis is why they are still students. Too dumb to realize they are just protesting to hurt themselves in the future when they pay taxes or even want to start their own business. Their parents should tell them they might want to quit praying to a false god. How about the fat one just stop consuming so much.
Report Post »CCulotta
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:41pmThis just in. Global warming has been cured!!! While countless scientist squabble over tax payer funded grants at the cost of their scientific integrity and the national deficit of countries around the world, these brave students took matters into their own very naked hands and saved the planet from the disastrous effects of global warming. As these students gyrated their bodies in awkward convulsions they actually changed the molecular makeup of carbon dioxide. These subtle changes have made it so that carbon dioxide is now simply a gas that is exhaled by animals and inhaled by plants, all warming characteristics of carbon dioxide have been eradicated. The science of this process is so complicated that it would be counter productive to ever try and comprehend it so please don’t… ever.
The world will for ever be grateful to these young, naked pioneers. Also, mother Earth will be rewarding these fine people by sending their own personal polar bear to hug them.
Finally all is right in the climate again, and we can now stop talking about global warming because, if you haven’t been paying attention, it has been solved by these miraculous people who had the courage to scantly dance on tables at a university cafeteria.
Report Post »hrankta
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:42pmSo how the hell is this supposed to affect the total solar irradience of the sun???
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:42pmKonservative and Ghost, so let’s be serious about this, shall we? If you are going to cite some definitive proof that the work of thousands of serious scientists is a hoax, then at least provide a source (name or link) to such a study or report. Without it, I’ll just assume it was totally fabricated. When you can produce a source, then we can have a serious discussion. If you cannot, then I’ll assume that you have conceded the argument and will continue to believe that climate change is a hoax because you are impervious to facts (i.e., you are stupid or crazy) or you want to remain willfully ignorant (i.e., you are craven).
Report Post »CatB
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:48pmThe brainwashing continues … when are parents going to say enough phoney science.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:48pmBMartin, Lord Monckton has been thoroughly discredited. You can read what an actual expert in heat transfer did to each and every false claim Monckton made here:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/lord-monckton-climate-skeptic-claims-point-by-point-debunked.php
Apparently, he undermined EVERY point that Monckton has every raised as a climate change skeptic. Now, either you are a flat-earther or you need to educate yourself a little bit better. Either way, your comment should be stricken from the record. it is totally false.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:50pmMikem, if you cannot produce actual evidence, then your opinion of who is right is irrelevant. You have not cited any sources, so I will assume that you have none. And that you should be ignored. A real rebuttal of my claims–and those of thousands of scientists who constitute the vast majority of experts in the field–will require more than merely asserting your uninformed opinion as fact. Expertise and empirical knowledge matter. Else, you look like a fool. If you do not cite supporting evidence, I’ll take it as a concession that you are wrong.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:51pmLadies stripping for the environment?
By your powers combined, indeed … GO PLANET! :)
(I’m not gay, so I didn’t catch some of the other stuff, sorry.)
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:52pmBrad, those scientists researching climate change publish in peer-reviewed journals and do follow scientific method. Obviously, then cannot replicate in a lab the climate, but much scientific work occurs in other ways (e.g., observing black holes to confirm Einstein’s theory of gravity). You sound very foolish making such sweeping generalizations.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:53pm(Sarcasm is deliberate) “What and the evil capitalists were not around to sell tickets and pocket the money? Bad evil capitalists…bad evil capitalists…”
These kids need to get real, and get over it.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:53pm@ABC,
“A real rebuttal of my claims–and those of thousands of scientists who constitute the vast majority of experts in the field–will require more than merely asserting your uninformed opinion as fact.”
I’ll paste something in response that I posted on another thread:
“For the Lefties, please listen. The proof against Global Warming is simple (and remember that it was Global Warming that was considered “settled science”, not Climate Change or Climate Disruption):
“Given what we know about regional climates, it’s simply not logically possible for there to be a phenomenon that can be called “Global Warming” in the sense that it has been presented.
“See, a global warming trend is completely within my paradigm, but only as an average of regional climate change. And it’s at the regional level where Global Warming as a doomsday philosophy breaks down with knowledge of recent history.
“If any region of the world gets colder after one year, then that is a region where the so called Global Warming Trend has not been able to have an effect. The trend in such a region is colder temperatures.
“And that’s how you know that Global Warming as a doomsday scenario cannot logically be true, given what we know about regional climates; because if those regions can become colder after one year, then why not all regions?
“Global Warming is a lie designed to redistribute America’s wealth around the world. The Obama Administration has a Marxist agenda, and the Global Warming scenario suits that end.”
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:54pmSo is this an example of “higher education”?
Their parents should demand their money back!!
Hey ABC! Is that as far as you got with the alphabet??
Report Post »Don’t worry. You have plenty of time to learn it since, THE PLANET IS NOT MELTING!!
You are right about one thing though. Ignorance does play a big role in people’s belief in globle warming…………AND YOUR’S IS STAGGERING!!!!
BoilitDown
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:55pm@ABC
If there is any “consensus” in the scientific community on climate change, it leans more toward the eccentricities of Earth’s orbit and the inconsistency of heat radiating from the Sun being the overriding causes of any warming.
There is, of course, a very compelling argument for being good stewards of the our Earth. There is not, however, any compelling cause to spend untold billions and legislating human behavior to fix something over which we have very little control. It is either monumentally arrogant or profoundly ignorant to think we puny humans can lord it over nature and wrestle it into submission.
31,486 actual scientists (9,029 of whom have earned a Phd,) generated and signed a petition rejecting the hyperbole of “global warming”. They signed the document along with their credentials.
Too much of the population has been duped into believing it is necessary to legislate the funding of climate efforts to mitigate change. Yes, we need to address some problems, but allowing government intervention as the hyperbolemongers advocate is too dangerous.
As for the students: kids in their teens have very poor judgement and will strip down at the drop of a hat.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:03pmRational and a Doctors, if you cannot cite real scientific authority (names, links), then you are not worth talking to. An unsupported claim or opinion is not worth the flickering pixels on my monitor.
Boil, without a source, I do not know how to respond to your specific petition. However, there is a great piece here noting how many scientists and other purported experts signing these petitions in general have little or no particular expertise in the area of climate change. See for yourself links to intersting studies on the subject: http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-many-climate-scientists-are-climate-skeptics.html
thepatriotdave
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:05pmabc,
Global warming and global cooling are natural threats. We have proof that its happened before and it will happen again. There is NOTHING we can do about it. That has been scientifically proven.
What you meant to say was… “Man-Made Global Warming” is a threat, but you couldn’t put it that way because you know the science is not there to prove it. Move along.
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:07pmWait, I got another one!
Ladies stripping to stop Global Warming?
It would seem to be having the opposite effect. Mission Fail – Am I right gentleman? :)
Report Post »HillBillySam1
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:08pmOh, the whiteness!!! My eyes!!! My eyes!!! White people should never dance in public! If these little Canucks really want to make an impact, they should keep their clothes on and get a real job! Don’t they think of those poor, traumatized lunch-ladies who have to go back and work there? What about the custodians who have to clean up the various piles of vomit caused by this “exhibition”?? Enviromentalists are sooooo selfish.
Report Post »Hey, ABC…..wasn’t that you leading the choreography?? Lady Gaga would be proud……
cotuit
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:11pm@abc; What is the correct tempature for planet earth? How will you proof your answer?
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:11pmI’m shocked!
A website called TREEHUGGER believes in the hoax of Man-Made Global Warming. I’m shocked I tell ya!~
ABC, you do know of course that almost everything you said has been dis-proven. Right?
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »Reagan/Demint.deciple
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:12pmHey Al, indoctrination is so fun isn’t it ? Or rather it must have been getting hot DUE to global warming… eeerrrrrr !!!! look at how stupid I am…
Report Post »Brad Wesselmann
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:14pmThen I’ll ask a couple more questions, ABC, who are these “peers”? Could they be the very same people scattered throughout our academic/scientific community that do not attend to basic scientific method?
I’m just an ignorant commoner who barely knows how to read so please type slowly when you respond or I may not understand. :-)
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:14pmDave, I fail to understand the logic. Forest fires occur naturally, but intentionally setting one is still illegal. Climate change occurs naturally, but it is wrong for us to exacerbate or accelerate its impacts. Further, scientists are not stupid. They are able to differentiate natural from man made impacts, especially the natural ones that occur within known parameters. I have talked with climate researchers about this very issue, so I know they are making those distinctions. I think you need to do a little more research on the subject before making such a blanket statement that scientists are missing such an obvious piece of the analysis.
Report Post »cotuit
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:17pm@abc; The geological history of the planet proves your argument is wrong. The debate is over, history
Report Post »history speaks for itself.
Decade of Greed
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:20pmCanadians.
Report Post »I’ll bet their parents are proud of them.
As a parent with 2 kids in college, I would have to seriously reevaluate paying for another semester at this liberal, tree-hugger, indoctrination center disguised as a college. If it will bring these young morons back to their senses, I’ll strip down to my skivies and dance on a table too.
abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:25pmDave, don’t cop out. If Penthouse magazine reported the earth was round, it doesn’t impact the scientific veracity of the statement. Similarly, that it was reported in a green magazine doesn’t change the accuracy of the rebuttal provided by someone with superior credentials on the subject than Lord Monckton. Either you rebut the factual evidence or you concede the argument. There are no other logical options.
Report Post »Brad Wesselmann
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:27pmABC, I just went back and read your response to me again, see I do have problems understanding fast typing. ;-) Einstein’s Theory of Gravity??? HAHAHAHA!! Yeah, that ought to do it…I won’t even bother to go into black holes, relativity, quantum mechanics, how Einstein proved his theory or any of that other bothersome science that keeps getting in your way. It’s all good brother! ;-)
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:27pmCotuit, I get this question a lot, so I guess you are parrotting others. The answer is that there is no single best global temperature, but rapid increases in temperatures in the past have been associated with mass extinctions and the collapse of entire ecosystems. So I think if you focus on rates of change, which are now at the highest levels seen in history, then you ought to be concerned. It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong about such grave matters.
Report Post »BoilitDown
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:27pm@ABC
Here are some of the referneces. Many contain links for further information.
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html
Report Post »http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/topten.html
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/
http://www.petitionproject.org
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63F2Q520100420?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Center for American Progress
http://thelances.org/hr3/CO2paper.html
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.globalwarming.org/
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.com/expert.cfm?expertId=349
http://www.ipcc.ch/ intergovernment panel on climate change
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0 Lord Monckton Video
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060713_global_warming.html
http://www.globalwarminghype.com/hockey_stick.html
abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:29pmBrad, the point is that Einstein’s predictions of how massive objects can bend time-space were proven through natural observations, and that this is a legitimate form of scientific discovery/inquiry. The same technique is being used by climate researchers. Glad to know that you understand physics, so maybe you will agree that climate scientists are actually following scientific methods. Perhaps you can provide some actual counter evidence rather than saying you can but not doing so. Until then, I‘ll assume that you’ve conceded the argument.
Report Post »proudinfidel54
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:39pmLet’s see if I got this straight…this was suppose to cool things off…lol…it good to see our future is in the hands of such level-headed, responsible people.
Report Post »Frameman
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:40pmI guess I’m just too old to understand what it is strip off your close to call attention to a “ cause ” which at best is shrouded in BS and propaganda and at worst is peratrated by criminal fat cats who want nothing more than moetary gain for themselves and their corrupt countries. It’s so sad that these fools alow themselves to be used by the very people they should really be protesting. Climate change may very well be happening but not because of humans. Humans don’t have either the intellect nor the tools to have any serious affect on the planets climate. Mother earth doesn’t even know, or care,that we exist. These overindulged idiots would serve humanity better by protesting brutal countries such as N. Korea, Iran, Somalia etc. Sadly this would never happen because they would actually need to study these regimes instead of being indoctrinated by their Socialist/ Progressive/ Communist professors. It’s just so much easier to be lectured than to pick up a book or sit at a computer and do your own research. God help us all. When the violence that they are being encouraged to perform commences be ready and prepaired to defend yourselves and loved ones, The chance of anyone else protecting you is slim at best
Report Post »Alvin691
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:41pm@ABC The overwhelming evidence that the globe is warming “slightly”, and it a natural set of trend cycles that have been going on for millions of years and not caused by man. The most recent trend is a flat or even declining temperature overall for the earth. What you are referring to is the overwhelming politically generated popaganda by UN loving globalists. To coin a phrase, “Move On”.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:42pm@HANDSOME PETE – this students were in Canada – give our US system of education a break here – I don‘t believe there is a state anywhere in the United States where these kids wouldn’t have got in big trouble for this!! http://maboulette.wordpress.com
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:43pm@ABC,
“… if you cannot cite real scientific authority (names, links), then you are not worth talking to.”
You want me to cite a real scientific authority to prove that regions of the world can get colder after a year?
Report Post »Brad Wesselmann
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:47pmABC, it is very hard to prove a negative and you are asking me to disprove something that has never been proven and quite frankly cannot be proven. So tell me, when did you stop beating your wife?
Concede the argument? The argument is so poorly defined throughout the world that I have no idea what argument you are passively aggressively concluding success. Are you saying that global warming is real? If so, I agree that right now the earth appears to be in a warming trend, however the earth is also 4.5 billion years old and it has been proven that cooling and warming trends occur…with actual science that can be visually observed, not just silly statistics. BTW, how far back does our actual observable research go…I’m thinking only a couple hundred years at best. Now unless you have access to a very good time machine, check back into Einstein’s Theory of “Gravity” for the “how to’s” on that ;-), there is no possible way a rational thinking being would buy into such abuses of reason.
You know, it is just possible that I have dealt with silliness like this before and have cracked a few books and got my hands dirty while forming this opinion…maybe!
Report Post »Brad Wesselmann
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:52pmBTW, “A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right”, you are friggin‘ killin’ me!!! hahahaha! Keep up the good work! ;-)
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 4:57pmAlvin, the science clearly shows that man is impacting the climate above and beyond the natural impacts you cite, and the scientists doing the research do not make their claims for political reasons. Until you cite sources, your opinions are not worth much.
Brad, I have made two claims: 1) that natural impacts do not account for the climate change we are experiencing, and 2) that the overwhelming majority of qualified experts believe (1). I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to show that the skeptics have any reliable studies on their side. You have failed to do this. Here’s a little help: intelligent skeptics will cite specific problems with data collection methodologies or how data is interpreted or what assumptions are made in the analysis. You have not provided this, nor have others here. You or other here simply assert without proof that the scientists are dumb, systematically biased or ruled by a left-wing conspiratorial ideology, and thus they ignore very basic issues like baseline warming-cooling cycles and the like. This is beyond dumb. It is like accusing architects in LA of not taking earthquakes into account when building skyscrapers. It simply doesn’t happen.
Report Post »GEC50
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:04pmI cannot wait until they actually have to pay taxes and are not living on Mom and Dad!
Report Post »kreese
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:19pmLet them do this in Sweden where it was -85 F.
Thank you Al Gore, UN, and all the other nuts, and those who have made millions from this scheiss! Just think, we almost elected Gore president–I know, I know, Obama is probably worse.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:24pmBOILITDOWN,
You win the best post of the day for this… “There is, of course, a very compelling argument for being good stewards of the our Earth. There is not, however, any compelling cause to spend untold billions and legislating human behavior to fix something over which we have very little control. It is either monumentally arrogant or profoundly ignorant to think we puny humans can lord it over nature and wrestle it into submission.”
Thanks for the logic, not the Marxist lies that people like ABC are trying to pass-off as truth.
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »James
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:31pmDoesn’t make much sense is the understatement of the day. What good could this possibly do for their non-cause except to make everyone think global warming activist are even dumber than we thought.
Report Post »matthew s harrison
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:34pmsomeone should tell them that global warming just ended, and it will continue to cool until about late April, early May, then it will warm again, then round about next October, it will cool again and so on. There is a great college course called weather and climate-first thing it covers is SEASONS!
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:47pmABC,
I’m going to do you a huge favor by leaving you a link to the most respected blog on the Internet whuch focuses on this subject. The guy who runs it is honest and very trustworthy and doesn’t play any political games with the issue. Go there and try to argue your nonsense and you will learn a quick lesson in honesty. This is the only link I will give you because you will claim all others are pooh.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »Oh, God!
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 5:55pmABC=already been chewed. Heard it once and reading your posts I suggest you go back to school. Oh, by the way, did you know that by using your computer, you are burning electricity which comes from coal/fossil fuels, and OMG, you are leaving your carbon footprint every time you post a blog. Maybe if you plant a tree or not bathe for a week, it might make up for it.
Report Post »cmr396
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 6:06pmyou know…after seeing this video, all of a sudden im feeling like global warming is real!
QUICK EVERYBODY TAKE YOUR CLOTHING OFF! and dance it to it’s normal temp
Report Post »Rogue
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 6:12pm@ABC – you are extremely well practiced in shooting down opinions that have not cited, as you would say, “definitive proof”. So, put your money where your mouth is, sir – don’t just claim that “thousands” of scientists agree – let’s see the specifics of what you believe, and cite those studies. How can we have a legitimate discussion, when for all we know, you believe pixie farts cause global warming.
For somoene who portays such an air of intellectual superiority, you sure are vague with your own stance. You are just as guilty as anyone else here you have chastised. Everything you have stated is based on your own opinion, not fact. If you want real discussion, give me a handful of studies you believe are accurate and trustworthy, and we wil have a real adult debate.
Report Post »VTPatriot44
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 6:18pmABC,
Please provide evidence that is not sourced from websites with a progressive/liberal political agenda (and I’ll be the judge of that). Until you do, I’ll assume you concede the point that man made global warming is a hoax (see, it’s just as stupid when I do it).
Throwing up strawman arguments and insisting people provide counter evidence that you’ll never accept is a rediculous and pointless way to debate. Come out of the academic ivory tower for while and talk to real people for a change. Perhaps the common sense that some of these folks are attempting to sway you with will have more of an impact in the future. By the way, scientific concensus once said bleeding people was a good idea and we are heading for another ice age. The latter was in the late 1970s.
Report Post »racialcoward
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 6:48pmNOT ALL THE STUDENTS WERE PARTICIPATING.
The only students do this were the members of the Mentally Challanged Club. I know these students who jumped up on tables that could have broke are in classes reserved for the half-brainers.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 6:57pmThey call this stripping? In HS in the 70′s we stripped nekked and streaked for fun. These punks claim to be doing it for a stupid cause and leave on more than they would at the beach. Pretty shallow belief in their causes. Idiots all.
Report Post »what4
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 7:06pmTard‘s just doing what Tard’s DO!
Report Post »indy1
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 7:12pmWatching white kids dance is always painful. Watching them protest for a liberal myth just makes it even more pathetic.
Report Post »JGP
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 7:25pm“Carbon Tax Me”… I’ll bet none of those dumba$$’s pay taxes.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 7:51pmBoil, thanks for all the posts. They clearly show that the skeptics do not have the science behind them. The following critiques or comments on each source in the order you provided them:
1. not a climate expert but an economist at the partisan Hoover Institute; he is not an authority on the issue
2. the link to MIT is solid and has a lot of good info that supports scientific claims
3. NCAR is similar to MIT
4. biased site not maintained by scientists, likely run by special interest groups that want to avoid paying the costs of emissions control
5. biased blog run by a non-expert; the article by Des Moore that shows the skeptics’ argument is flawed and funded by a utilities backed special interest group seeking to avoid paying for envirionmental remediation and Moore is a non-expert
6. D‘Aleo and Smith’s claims have been discredited. Here is but one of many criticisms: “Their claim is apparently that coastal station absolute temperatures are being used to estimate the current absolute temperatures in mountain regions and that the anomalies there are warm because the coast is warmer than the mountain. This is simply wrong. What is actually done is that temperature anomalies are calculated locally from local baselines, and these anomalies can be interpolated over quite large distances. This is perfectly fine and checkable by looking at the pairwise correlations at the monthly stations between different stations (London-Paris or New York-Cleveland or LA-San Francisco). The second thread in their ‘accusation’ is that the agencies are deleting records, but this just underscores their lack of understanding of where the GHCN data set actually comes from. This is thoroughly discussed in Peterson and Vose (1997) which indicates where the data came from and which data streams give real time updates. The principle one is the CLIMAT updates of monthly mean temperature via the WMO network of reports. These are distributed by the Nat. Met. Services who have decided which stations they choose to produce monthly mean data for (and how it is calculated) and [has] absolutely nothing to do with NCDC or NASA.”
7. over 90% of the people who signed that petition lack expertise in climate science, and the remaining scientists are in a small minority and have not published much on global climate change. this is hardly compelling
8. this source underscores the strong scientific consensus and risks
9. irrelevant piece about CO2 as a toxin in caves, not examining it as a greenhouse gas
10. CFACT runs this biased blog, and they are one of the most famous outposts for non-expert skeptics; they are also funded by multiple polluting industries
11. another good site that underscores the science and risks
12. blog run by non-expert that hasn’t been updated in three years
13. biased blog funded by a conservative political group without any climate experts on their staff or board
14. a dead link
15. IPCC is a key researcher and climate modeller with good science and has been leading the call for action
16. another site with real science maintained by scientists that is calling for action on global warming
17. Monckton’s speech; he’s discredited, so no sense listening to him
18. another science site calling for action
19. summary of arguments against the hockey stick; however, this line of critique was discredited long ago. You can find a summary of reasons why at skepticalscience.com
So, your summary clearly shows that the sources of skepticism are not marshalled by scientists with expertise and a history of doing in-depth research in the area of climate change. While the sources that are concerned about the climate are exclusively from such qualified experts. Thanks for proving my point.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 7:56pmVT, Boil has already done that. I have commented on his survey of sources and found that the ones that are calling for action on climate change are non-partisan scientific or university research outfits. So that is done. Also, I have not thrown up straw arguments. I have cited real peer-reviewed research. That you do not know the difference (hint, hint: research conclusions you disagree with is not the definition of a straw man argument), proves you understand little about science. Finally, it was never scientists that called for bleeding people–early doctors could not explain why it worked nor understood germ theory to say that it was risky–but non-scientists that attempted it out of non-scientific superstitious reasons (kind of like our religious leaders today). And scientific consensus never coalesced around a 1970s cooling theory, that was merely cited in multiple popular publications like Newsweek, which is not a peer reviewed scientific journal. For more on the bogus scientists-called-for-an-ice-age-in-the-70s argument, see: http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 8:01pmDave, scientific research is not BS. But if you think so, you can take your chances with a plumber or witch doctor when you need open heart surgery or cancer treatment.
Rogue, if you examine skepticalscience.com, you can see all the bogus arguments summarized. It is a great resource to ferret out the nonsense being trafficked on the right. As for an accurate explanation of the science supporting man made climate change, you need only visit some of the science-based links that Boil produced, such as the MIT link that gives you a full explanation of the science, the models, the predictions (and the systematic underestimation of the models about how bad the climate change is now and likely will be). I also have personally visited with one of the leading climate researchers at the prestigious Lawrence Livermore Labs and have learned about how bad the projections for CO2 emissions and temperature change are. You can find some of those conclusions on their website. I hope that helps.
Report Post »Slayer
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 8:22pmAnyone who believes in Global Warming needs to spend some time on Watts Up With That and The Air Vent blogs to understand Climategate. And they need to see the photos of dozens of the weather stations used to take the readings from where the alarmists are deducing global warming. Because the weather stations in every one of these pictures are poorly placed – next to heat vents, hot tarvia parking lots, on black roofs, etc.
Report Post »Learn the facts. Then you’ll be disgusted by how bad the alarmists are trying to deceive you. And it’s all for money.
nuttyvet
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 9:26pmThey’re so edgy and informed! gag…
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 10:14pmABC
Report Post »The Peer review you speak of is the real hoax and proven in the emails from east anglia. How do you explain “Hide the Decline” and the fact that the suppression of real facts were the angle of all of your cited conscientist? You have to privide the proof or facts that this did not occur. It is your responsibility or else it is true for ever and ever. If you do not cite facts or factitious type stuff then you should have no right to ever speak againish.
Beckofile
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 10:28pmOh and ABC.
I will have fun in the upcoming years treating you like a red headed step child.
Report Post »BoilitDown
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 11:10pmABC
Report Post »I can see that you are a “true believer” and will remain unwavering in your opinion. I reviewed the sources I gave you and indeed some are out of date and the list was not complete. Judging from what you’ve written, I doubt anything further would sway you. I will, therefore, assume that you welcome the tyranny that comes with massive government intervention despite the lessons of history. Even though there is extremely little the billions of dollars demanded by climate legislation could possibly do to effect any measurable corrections the alarm wringers will press on.
Perhaps it would be kinder to just kill off two thirds of the population of the planet rather than subjugating them into the poverty and misery of overbearing government.
flo12
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 11:37pm@boilitdown
Report Post »ABC is right, the only solid referencs you provide actually support global warming. The Stanford one doesn’t say anything to refute it, it just says humans coped better in warmer times throughout history.
cologoddess
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 11:46pmYou are SO right Handsome Pete – makes me sick just how ignorant our young people are about the FACTS!
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 12:08am@ Konservative PUNK December 2, 2010 at 3:15pm
I share your dislike of the HIPPIES. They were but a few percent of that generation and you should recognize that.
They are the ones like Clinton, Bill Ayers, Bush (his daddy made a safe hideout in the Air Guard where he would not see combat), and many others dodged going to Viet Nam in one way or another. Some went to Canada, remain there, and can’t come back because they are cowards and traitors to America.
Jimmy the goober Carter pardoned one of the mad Commie-Hippie bombers presently in Obamas counsel.
The cowards that fill our education and political system started their degrees during the Nam era.
Therefore, PUNK, back off the Boomers for the ones you speak are not representative of that generation which is actually a part of the Greatest Generation of which I see no equal in the next couple of decades. Some are Gen X, Gen Zero, and other such negative attributes.
Drugs, Immorality, England, France, Canada, New England area (PA, WVA, up to Maine), West Coast, Illinois, Michigan, Mid East, Afrikaa, South America, Mexico, and the Far East are OUR enemies. The common cement among these are Liberal-Progressive-Socialist-Marxist-Communist degenerates and they represent many generations from Lennon to date.
Islamist that seeks the destruction of Christians and Hebrews top the list and those are of your generation…PUNK
Report Post »proudinfidel54
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 12:43amTo ABC, those climate change nuts lost me when they tried to sanction the flatulet cows…they would have accomplished more trying to stop the flatulent politicians and scientists, there is not enough recorded history on climate change to begin to predict the natural cycles of the earths weather patterns ,much less, to try to control them within one persons life time or generation talk about arrogant, that would be like the flee trying to control the dog. The scientists links you have listed no doubt would boggle the laymans mind, but most level headed men recognize it for what it is…subterfuge. it is all part of a hidden agenda to bring the world into a one world, globalist government. You Sir, are hear just to further that agenda but on this sight your words fall on deaf ears, or rather, enlightened ears.
Report Post »proudinfidel54
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 1:01amABC I have just one argument for you Green Slime people, DDT, the propoganda against this miracle chemical was unfounded and totally vicious. Till this day none of it has been substantiated. What has been documented is the millions of lives that have been lost, due to the ban on this product in third world countries where diseases run rampant, spread by mosquitoes. I hope you and the green slime people are happy because there are no spots on your apples…but then again killing millions of people really is the goal of the Green Slime People because after all, it’s those pesky people that are messing up “YOUR” planet.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 1:53amnow that’s funny…oh those canadians!
Report Post »rebel
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 4:46amnotice the effect it had on the other students. NOTHING! At least these hippies were decent looking. American hippies can take a note from these guys and clean up a little.
Report Post »US_SOLDIER
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 6:25amFor Mr. ABC
Report Post »Debunking Mr. Gores Powerpoint: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/Climate%20Presentation%20Annotated%201-1-2010.ppt
Medievil warm period rediscovered: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered
30,000 scientist sue Al Gore: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html
Dustyluv
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 6:29amUseless idiots and ABCDOLT…they keep me laughing. Thanks for your stupidity!!
Report Post »JKN
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 8:00amAfter decades of Liberal propaganda, this is what we get…
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 11:06amSlayer, I tried to visit WattsUpWithThat, but it was dead when I went there. I infer from your comment that both sites you mention relate to ClimateGate. Now, I have provided a link at SkepticalScience.com that provides a ton of links that debunk the significance of ClimateGate. Some here have asked me to to prove that emails saying hide the decline were not sent. I cannot do that. They were. However, the unprofessional behavior of a couple of scientists did not undermine the research at the university, much less all the research being done on climate change, and there were three independent groups that confirmed this. It is all in the link I provided. So ClimateGate is a ruse. It means nothing and has no impact on debunking climate change research.
You also mention the placement of weather stations near hot air vents and on hot pavement. Understand that temperature is gathered in hundreds of thousands of locations around the globe: under the ocean, from space on land, from weather balloons, and the like. To suggest that all of these locations are systematically biased because they are near a blacktop surface or a hot air vent–which you do without any support or source–is beyond stupid. Just think about what you are saying for a moment. I think you will see your error. If you do not, then I can only conclude that you want to remain ignorant on this issue. Just like many people ignore all the compelling evidence around evolution and keep citing bogus studies that have been easily and soundly discredited in the professional journals and mainstream press. My problem with all of this is that you present your side as though you have equal credibility, when, in fact, you are trying to say that the earth is flat and then demand to be taken seriously. It doesn’t work. Either you cite the very small number of qualified experts who have an informed but differing view or you concede the argument. To make such infantile arguments that are so easily exploded as malicious myths, and then demand to be counted as an intelligent person…that won’t fly.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 11:12amBeck, just a couple of questions. If you do not answer them, then you’ve conceded the argument and admitted that I am right and you are wrong. First, why do you not have to provide evidence but make unsourced and unsupported claims that everyone is to take on faith, while I have to provide loads of proof? If you are wrong, we have more serious problems than if I am wrong. My false positive costs money, while your false positive costs lives. Just wondering…
Second, what support do you have for the claim that the peer review process for climate scientists is rigged? I assume that you have or will at some point take medicines. Are you going to avoid using modern medical care, since the basic science behind modern science is subjected to the same peer review process and is often done in the same scientific journals? Also, some of the best climate research is being done in the same labs that design our weapons systems, including nuclear bombs and anti-missile systems. Are you not an advocate of deploying such systems for the national defense, since the same corrupt labs that are using the very same high powered computers to do the bogus research on climate are also doing presumably bogus work on weapons?
As I said, please respond to these questions. Else, I’ll rightly assume that you have nothing.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 11:17amProud, you will have to provide a source. I know of no serious climate scientist that believes that sanctioning bovine sourced methane will solve the problem. It is indeed a contributor, but the scientists that are attempting to capture this byproduct are attempting to use it to create green energy. There are at least a couple of venture backed start-ups working on this and have generated prototypes to power a good-sized farm from the methane and other waste from cattle and hog production facilities. That this effort causes you to deny climate change is kind of like me believing that Bush knocked down the Towers in 9/11 because his cousin has a degree in architecture. Makes no sense. Think about it a little more and you will see your logical error. You need to address the question of climate on the basis of the evidence, or trust the experts qualified to do so. It‘s the same as what you’d do if you consulted your oncologist if you were diagnosed with cancer.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 11:22amUSSoldier, thank you for your service. As I mentioned elsewhere, even if Al Gore is a pathological liar or even a criminal, his attempts to raise awareness about global warming does not detract at all from the quality of work done by the scientists. This is a classic case of the logical fallacy known as guilt by association, and it is wrong. As a soldier, you can understand that it was wrong for the American public to turn our backs on Vietnam Veterans, punishing them for legitimate complaints about how the war in Vietnam was waged. If the gripe was with command, then attack them. But the soldiers doing their jobs on the ground should not have been tarnished by this. Similarly, Gore is not writing the research on climate change. He is not a scientist, nor qualified to do it. So you cannot attack the quality of the scientific work done by these professionals based upon the foibles of Al Gore. This is bad logic, and it doesn’t constitute a rebuttal or raise any discredit to the scientific consensus and the body of work on the subject of climate change. I hope you see that now.
Report Post »Rene
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 11:36amI couldn’t have said it better myself.
Report Post »Kalidor835
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 1:20pmAs I’ve posted elsewhere when the topic of “Man-made Global Warming” has came up:
“I’ve said for a long time now that the entire “Global Warming Alarmism” is nothing but BS. I firmly believe that the whole reason Al Gore is out there chest thumping about it isn‘t that he’s a “religious zealot” though. Al Gore is either the primary or a major stock holder in just about every company that offers “Carbon Credit Offsets”. In a nut shell Al Gore is preaching from the global warming pulpit because he stands to make 100s of millions of dollars, if not billions, from it. When he left the office of vice-president he was worth an estimated $2 million. As of now from his movie, stock holdings, and global warming speaking engagements he’s worth closer to $200 million and stands to make more. Never mind the fact that recently a British judge ruled that “An Inconvenient Truth” can no longer be shown in British schools as it’s full of inaccuracies that are passed off as facts. Al Gore is also one of the biggest hypocrites on the planet as he uses as much energy at his home as a NYC block (anyone else wonder what old Al is doing in his basement?) and everywhere he goes he does so in a private jet. I seem to recall Al Gore as well as the U.S. House of Representatives giving auto execs a tongue lashing for using the same private jets when they had to fly to Washington D.C. for hearings.
Also take into consideration that the alarmists are only going by a little over 100 years of data. Now consider the fact that mankind has been on the planet for 10,000 years or so and the planet as a whole has been populated by one life form or another for 100s of millions of years and that 100 years they shove down our throats is well below 1% of either number. A study in any other scientific field where you base your so called “concrete evidence” on less than 1% of the data is not acceptable but with global warming apparently it is. Why?”
I have yet to get an answer as to how less than 1% is sufficient data to form an opinion on anything. I’d also like to know how the summer of 2009 and winter of 2009/2010 can be the coldest in 30-40 years and still suffer from a global warming?
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 1:56pmThe liberal leaders these kids look up to just shrug their shoulders and say, “oh kids these days”.
Affects of forcing issues upon the people that have no real value except to those who take in the money.
Name one conservative issue that encourages young people to shed their cloths inorder to prove a point?
Report Post »Russman
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 7:20pmI agree,
Report Post »Last week I happened to have the TV on during a kids show about animals…. The majority of the commercials invloved some kind of comments about how animals are suffering due to human activity. Inserted along with that slop were THREE commercials for the obama chia pet! (“Signifying Hope and Prosperity”)
Are kids are helpless…………………
independentvoteril
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 9:45pmWell we should HELP these students out.. hopefully they are in a cold climate turn off the HEAT for the winter..tell them they have to continue to help with global warming.. which since it‘s so hot they don’t need HEAT..
Report Post »Squ33
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 10:29pmKeep Protesting! lol
Report Post »James
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 10:30pmAnd Tea Partiers are the dumb ones? Odds are most of these people have no clue what they are doing other than following the crowd.
Part of the Obama’s not a Keynesin, he’s an American crowd.
http://crazyconservative.wordpress.com/
Report Post »Kalidor835
Posted on December 4, 2010 at 7:33am@walkwithme1966, I guess you never heard of California? I can see this getting good press out there in la la land and the kids an award from the state for standing up for the progressive BS of the day. Remember this is the state where a school board tells kids they can’t fly the U.S flag or wear patriotic shirts on May 5th so they don’t offend Mexicans that belong in Mexico to begin with.
Report Post »Russell C
Posted on December 4, 2010 at 12:33pmIt’s indoctrination across the spectrum – first, note this 12/3 article for its general content about ‘global warming nuisance lawsuits’, “Sotomayor Recusal Likely as Supreme Court Weighs Greenhouse Gas ‘Nuisance’ Case”
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/12/03/03greenwire-justice-sotomayor-recusal-likely-as-supreme-cou-2319.html
And then see my 11/27piece at Breitbart’s Big Government so see how this whole so-called global warming crisis could have been effectively questioned by the mainstream media more than a decade ago: “Global Warming Nuisance Lawsuits Are Based on a FATAL Flaw” http://biggovernment.com/rcook/2010/11/27/global-warming-nuisance-lawsuits-are-based-on-a-fatal-flaw/
Report Post »Armed Patriot
Posted on December 4, 2010 at 1:21pmHavent these girls ever heard of matching bra and panties??? They look so retarded… Oh wait… still fighting for global warming,.. sorry for the redundant thought.Oh and ABC, your a dumb as hell ass bag spouting lies, falsehoods, liberalism, and the scientists that got us to outlaw cfl’s to save the ozone, made matters worse. Scientists are lying for research dollars and your the assbag that believes em.
Report Post »