[Squid]

You disparage people who watch the Fox News Channel but you cannot even acknowledge the lunacy of another cable news network fact checking a comedy sketch. Very interesting and also mildly amusing.

To be technically correct, I believe the fact check was done by Politifact, and reported on by CNN - not that it really matters. You seem to be desparate to have me denounce the story by CNN (although I have no idea why). I don't really care if they did a fact check - it's a comedy show. It's a non-story. Would you feel better if I beat my dog because CNN did a fact check on a comedy show? Lastly, I don't disparage people that watch Faux News. I disparage people that watch it, and believe that they are seeing a news broadcast - much less an unbiased one.

What is there to say about a few corporations jockeying for favor from the president that they helped elect? When the government meddles in the private economy it creates more losers than winners but it does create some winners. GE, for example, stands to make billions if Obama's cap and tax program passes and Goldman Sachs will also continue to profit from Obama's socialist agenda. I hope that I have answered your question to your satisfaction. I am certainly satisfied with my answer.

So, basically, you think that these corporations are only making such a move as some sort of payoff to Obama? They don't really believe that global warming is occuring, or that it is an important issue - they just want to make Obama look good - is that it?

[Hoot Gibson]

To be technically correct, I believe the fact check was done by Politifact, and reported on by CNN - not that it really matters. You seem to be desparate to have me denounce the story by CNN (although I have no idea why). I don't really care if they did a fact check - it's a comedy show. It's a non-story. Would you feel better if I beat my dog because CNN did a fact check on a comedy show? Lastly, I don't disparage people that watch Faux News. I disparage people that watch it, and believe that they are seeing a news broadcast - much less an unbiased one.

I certainly do not expect you to see any parallels between the liberal media that you follow and Fox News. My expectations are pretty low, so that I am never disappointed with liberal behavior.

So, basically, you think that these corporations are only making such a move as some sort of payoff to Obama? They don't really believe that global warming is occuring, or that it is an important issue - they just want to make Obama look good - is that it?

Do you have a better explanation of why GE would allow its MSNBC subsidiary to put two clowns like Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews and Keith "world's worst human being" Olbermann on the air as political news anchors? Do you find it the least bit curious that GE allows its cable news channel to air childish attacks against Fox News on a regular basis and that White House spokespeople behave in the same manner while drawing federal paychecks?

I challenge you to give an example of any other modern day administration that worked with private companies and used public funding, to undermine a media outlet the way that Barrach Hussein Obama has done. Good corporations act in the best interests of their shareholders but good public servants are supposed to act in the public's best interest. Obama is my president the same as he is your president, regardless of my low opinion of the man.

This administration is trying to pick winners and losers in the private sector, which is a very bad precedent. However, Obama's attempts to undermine Fox News Channel using federal funds and its own stable of media lapdogs, is bea real threat to our liberty.

Global warming is a hoax. If the experts who claim that we are entering a long cooling phase are correct, it will not matter how many microphones Al Gore silences or how aggressively Obama attacks his media critics, the truth will prevail. Of course, Obama will be able to waste hundreds of billions of dollars in the meantime.

[jetpilot]

I certainly do not expect you to see any parallels between the liberal media that you follow and Fox News. My expectations are pretty low, so that I am never disappointed with liberal behavior.
Do you have a better explanation of why GE would allow its MSNBC subsidiary to put two clowns like Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews and Keith "world's worst human being" Olbermann on the air as political news anchors? Do you find it the least bit curious that GE allows its cable news channel to air childish attacks against Fox News on a regular basis and that White House spokespeople behave in the same manner while drawing federal paychecks?

I challenge you to give an example of any other modern day administration that worked with private companies and used public funding, to undermine a media outlet the way that Barrach Hussein Obama has done. Good corporations act in the best interests of their shareholders but good public servants are supposed to act in the public's best interest. Obama is my president the same as he is your president, regardless of my low opinion of the man.

This administration is trying to pick winners and losers in the private sector, which is a very bad precedent. However, Obama's attempts to undermine Fox News Channel using federal funds and its own stable of media lapdogs, is bea real threat to our liberty.

Global warming is a hoax. If the experts who claim that we are entering a long cooling phase are correct, it will not matter how many microphones Al Gore silences or how aggressively Obama attacks his media critics, the truth will prevail. Of course, Obama will be able to waste hundreds of billions of dollars in the meantime.

Thinking of our long lost aunt?:devilflam

[Squid]

... Global warming is a hoax....

I guess that really reflects everything someone needs to know about you, and your political beliefs. Anything else is just redundant.

[Mr.Kimball]

I guess that really reflects everything someone needs to know about you, and your political beliefs. Anything else is just redundant.

Kinda uncalled for, dont you think? All you have done here is just show your old ugly necked posterior. Talk about something that really reflects "everything someone needs to know".

FWIW, I dont believe I would spout off too much about somebody that I dont even know.

I know what makes Hoot qualified to discuss not only this but several subject matters, and trust me he has some dang good creditials. I also know what some of Jet Pilot's are too. Tell us what yours are. I kinda already know, but tell everyone else anyways. Just a little advice, you better come up with something pretty dad gone solid. Better yet ( and just for oldtimes sake), I believe I would see if I could conjure up ol Woody Jr. from the dead, and go back to tag teamin somebody again in the next Ashland football thread. Boy, that'd be a real gas again, huh? I hear Boyd is way down. You two could really kick some County butt this year. Better dead, than red. Right?

Anyways, I thought you were just a "kerosene cucumber" makin homemaker. Or was that just in a former life? I really dont mean to sound cruel, but the Nip/Tuck job is very unflattering. You look nothin like your old saintly self. Again, hate to be so critical, but Yuck!!:yikes:

[Squid]

Kinda uncalled for, dont you think? All you have done here is just show your old ugly necked posterior. Talk about something that really reflects "everything someone needs to know".

I think it was a good encapsulation of who Hoot is, and how he confirms his opinions. You can watch whatever portion of my anatomy that you choose.

FWIW, I dont believe I would spout off too much about somebody that I dont even know.

Too late. You already have.

I know what makes Hoot qualified to discuss not only this but several subject matters, and trust me he has some dang good creditials. I also know what some of Jet Pilot's are too. Tell us what yours are. I kinda already know, but tell everyone else anyways. Just a little advice, you better come up with something pretty dad gone solid. Better yet ( and just for oldtimes sake), I believe I would see if I could conjure up ol Woody Jr. from the dead, and go back to tag teamin somebody again in the next Ashland football thread. Boy, that'd be a real gas again, huh? I hear Boyd is way down. You two could really kick some County butt this year. Better dead, than red. Right?

Anyways, I thought you were just a "kerosene cucumber" makin homemaker. Or was that just in a former life? I really dont mean to sound cruel, but the Nip/Tuck job is very unflattering. You look nothin like your old saintly self. Again, hate to be so critical, but Yuck!!:yikes:

A fine rant. You should be proud.

[Hoot Gibson]

Thinking of our long lost aunt?:devilflam

I guess the Andy Griffith posts were still lurking somewhere in my subconscience. :biggrin:

Did you know that Frances Bavier, the lady who played Aunt Bea on the show, was a terror on the set? A real nasty piece of work according to other members of the cast. She carried a huge chip on her shoulder because she thought her acting talents were not being utilized on the show. According to Andy Griffith, she finally called him and apologized for her years of tormenting the crew and cast, just four months before her death.

If Aunt Bea were alive today, I bet that she would be a global warming hoaxter - probably holding bake sales or donating her famous kerosene pickles to support the cause. :biggrin:

[Hoot Gibson]

I guess that really reflects everything someone needs to know about you, and your political beliefs. Anything else is just redundant.

Let's make a deal. I will continue to post facts that you cannot refute and you continue to post ad hominem attacks. As a bonus, you could also point out any grammatical errors or typos that I might make. How does that sound? If you decide to respond substantively to the issues that I have raised about the integrity of the data on which government and UN climatologists base their models or on the failure of those models to predict the current cooling cycle - well, that will be okay with me too.

[Mr.Kimball]

I think it was a good encapsulation of who Hoot is, and how he confirms his opinions. You can watch whatever portion of my anatomy that you choose.


Too late. You already have.



A fine rant. You should be proud.

What makes you so sure of that? So you dont want to disclose your own credentials, huh?

I guess the Andy Griffith posts were still lurking somewhere in my subconscience. :biggrin:

Did you know that Frances Bavier, the lady who played Aunt Bea on the show, was a terror on the set? A real nasty piece of work according to other members of the cast. She carried a huge chip on her shoulder because she thought her acting talents were not being utilized on the show. According to Andy Griffith, she finally called him and apologized for her years of tormenting the crew and cast, just four months before her death.
If Aunt Bea were alive today, I bet that she would be a global warming hoaxter - probably holding bake sales or donating her famous kerosene pickles to support the cause. :biggrin:

And ultimately died a lonely old soul, wallowing amid the feces and urine of her cats.

[Squid]

Let's make a deal. I will continue to post facts that you cannot refute and you continue to post ad hominem attacks. As a bonus, you could also point out any grammatical errors or typos that I might make. How does that sound? If you decide to respond substantively to the issues that I have raised about the integrity of the data on which government and UN climatologists base their models or on the failure of those models to predict the current cooling cycle - well, that will be okay with me too.

Okay - let's make a deal.

If you continue to cite blatantly right wing sources, while ignoring the positions taken by the NAS and NSF (which, along with the Royal Academy of Science make up the three most highly respected institutions in science), I'll continue to call you on it.

As for the "facts" regarding the integrity of the data which the global warming models are built on, you might (if you really cared) try to check the legitimacy of your own sources.

The site you got your information from (Surfacestations.org) is run by Anthony Watts, who is a religious fanatic, and a global warming denier. His material (which you have hung your hat on) was rejected by the scientific journals, and was finally published by the Heartland Institute (a right wing think tank that conducts advocacy work for special interest groups).

There have been a number of arguments made about the quality of the work done by surfacestations.org - not the least of which is the incredibly small sample size of the number of stations that they have information on. Naturally, I'm sure this won't be a problem for you, since they are telling you what you want to hear, regarding global warming.

The problem for you is, the facts don't simply change because you want them to. You are willing to completely ignore solid, peer reviewed work that is published by the leading journals, so that you can embrace the findings of special interest groups that share your goal of denying reality.


Now - for your half of the deal.

Let's see if you can take the time to actually read the reports published by the NAS, NSF, or the Royal Academy of Science. If you choose to do so, then we can hold a discussion based on what the best minds of our time have to say, rather than a hand selected group of people serving the almighty dollar.

Deal?

[Hoot Gibson]

Okay - let's make a deal.

If you continue to cite blatantly right wing sources, while ignoring the positions taken by the NAS and NSF (which, along with the Royal Academy of Science make up the three most highly respected institutions in science), I'll continue to call you on it.

As for the "facts" regarding the integrity of the data which the global warming models are built on, you might (if you really cared) try to check the legitimacy of your own sources.

The site you got your information from (Surfacestations.org) is run by Anthony Watts, who is a religious fanatic, and a global warming denier. His material (which you have hung your hat on) was rejected by the scientific journals, and was finally published by the Heartland Institute (a right wing think tank that conducts advocacy work for special interest groups).

There have been a number of arguments made about the quality of the work done by surfacestations.org - not the least of which is the incredibly small sample size of the number of stations that they have information on. Naturally, I'm sure this won't be a problem for you, since they are telling you what you want to hear, regarding global warming.

The problem for you is, the facts don't simply change because you want them to. You are willing to completely ignore solid, peer reviewed work that is published by the leading journals, so that you can embrace the findings of special interest groups that share your goal of denying reality.


Now - for your half of the deal.

Let's see if you can take the time to actually read the reports published by the NAS, NSF, or the Royal Academy of Science. If you choose to do so, then we can hold a discussion based on what the best minds of our time have to say, rather than a hand selected group of people serving the almighty dollar.

Deal?

First of all, let me take an opportunity to thank you for badgering me to click on the links that you posted. As other posters have already, one of the links led to a study published in 2000, which was only year two in the current global cooling cycle. I know that it is getting more difficult to find recent studies on "global warming, " or as it is known since cooling commenced, "climate change," but 9 years is old news when one is claiming that we are in the midst of a crisis threatening the end of life as we know it.

I would like to know why you posted a link detailing an ARRA grant for studying glaciers in a small area of Greenland to support your contention that man-made global warming is real. Have the results of the study funded by Stimulus money been written in advance? Is spending money studying a glacier in Greenland a good use of Stimulus money when the unemployment rate is already hovering near 10 percent? (It's a good thing that Stimulus package passed because Obama predicted that unemployment might reach 9 percent without it.)

The fact that the Obama administration is throwing away money on a study intended to justify its assault on the coal and petroleum industries and improve the prospects for its cap and tax program is not a persuasive argument, IMO. As others have observed, government funds studies that it expects to bolster its policies. The pressure on researchers to cherry pick data to ensure future funding is considerable.

Your faith in the federal government is astounding.

[Squid]

Your faith in the federal government is astounding.

I would say that your ability to construct strawmen is astounding. Sadly obvious, but astounding.

For, let's say, the 30th time, I will restate where I place my faith - in the NSF, NAS, and the RAS. You are trying to set up a strawman, to obscure the fact that you place more faith in the special interests and their paid advocates.

It appears that you now want to shift the discussion to the stimulus package and the Obama administration, I guess you could start a new thread. I would suggest that, while we are in this thread, maybe we could focus on your claims of posting "facts", and why you believe that the VAST majority of the climatologists in this world are wrong, while FOX, the energy consortium, and the Heartland Institute are right.

The articles I linked were simply the ones toward the top of my Google search for papers on global warming, from the NAS and NSF. Normally, I'd be more than happy to Google up some more, but it really seems to be a waste of time, since you are simply going to reject them out of hand. If you won't accept items published by these groups, then we're really just chasing our tails.

The good news out of all of this is twofold. First, deniers of global warming are in the extreme minority (between 12 to 23%, depending on how you interpret the responses), and the number is shrinking as time goes by.

Secondly, the government is no longer being run by people that are directly linked to big oil, and the days of ignoring what science has to tell us are over.

[Hoot Gibson]

I would say that your ability to construct strawmen is astounding. Sadly obvious, but astounding.

For, let's say, the 30th time, I will restate where I place my faith - in the NSF, NAS, and the RAS. You are trying to set up a strawman, to obscure the fact that you place more faith in the special interests and their paid advocates.

It appears that you now want to shift the discussion to the stimulus package and the Obama administration, I guess you could start a new thread. I would suggest that, while we are in this thread, maybe we could focus on your claims of posting "facts", and why you believe that the VAST majority of the climatologists in this world are wrong, while FOX, the energy consortium, and the Heartland Institute are right.

The articles I linked were simply the ones toward the top of my Google search for papers on global warming, from the NAS and NSF. Normally, I'd be more than happy to Google up some more, but it really seems to be a waste of time, since you are simply going to reject them out of hand. If you won't accept items published by these groups, then we're really just chasing our tails.

The good news out of all of this is twofold. First, deniers of global warming are in the extreme minority (between 12 to 23%, depending on how you interpret the responses), and the number is shrinking as time goes by.

Secondly, the government is no longer being run by people that are directly linked to big oil, and the days of ignoring what science has to tell us are over.

:Clap: Ahh yes, there is the crux of your problem- evil big oil. An industry that makes a very modest profit margin relative to its sales and loarge capital investments must be fighting the socialists' efforts to regulate and tax it out of existence because of its pure, unadulterated greed. However, the motives of snake oil salesmen like Al Gore and large corporations like GE and Goldman Sachs advocating measures that will cost our economy trillions of dollars are pure as the driven snow. They are obviously trying to spread global warming - excuse me, climate change - hysteria out of their strong sense of duty to the general public so we must forgive the poetic license that global warming scare mongers take with science.

Attempts to ridicule global warming skeptics was not enough for people sharing your opinion on "climate change" to convince open minded people to ignore the thousands of reputable scientists who have examined the same data and reached different conclusions. For the sake of the children, it became necessary to equate global warming dissenters with those who deny the Nazi holocaust, hence the term "global warming denier" was born. A pretty nasty insult to be sure, but the ends justify the means when one is championing a final solution to the problem of global warming, eh?

Has it occurred to you that the Obama administration might be funding projects studying climate change in isolated areas that have already experienced recent changes in temperature for a reason other than determining whether CO2 is, in fact, causing a warming of global temperatures?

Do you ever wonder why the government and media focus on anectdotal accounts of local instances of warming while they downplay large scale trends such as the correlation of historic lows in sunspot activity and the current cooling cycle? Or why the media treats us to stories about local ice melts in Antartica but ignores the fact that the overall amount of ice in Antartica has been growing rapidly for years? Or why the best study that you can find upon which to rest your case for global warming was done nine years ago?

As for "googling up" links to old studies or studies focused on localized weather changes, please do not waste your time or mine. However, if you stumble across a recent study that shows man-made global warming has occurred since 1998, I would love to read it. Also, if you find videos of Al Gore answering tough questions about his global warming theories, the many factual errors in his movie, or his obvious conflicts of interest without cutting the questioners' microphones I would be glad to take a look at them.

Czech President Klaus ready to debate Gore on climate change
Washington - Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he presented the English version of his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. "I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he's not too much willing to make such a conversation," Klaus said. "So I'm ready to do it."

[Squid]

... However, if you stumble across a recent study that shows man-made global warming has occurred since 1998, I would love to read it. ...

The rest of your post was worthless, and nothing more than you "re-hashing" the same tired strawmen that I have pointed out already.

Since you claim that you would "love to read it", I'll provide you some articles:
From the NSF - an article about the effects of global warming on algae and coral - dated September 9, 2009. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115611

From the NSF - a study conducted in 2003, showing large scale changes in the salinity of the ocean. http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr03145.htm

From the NSF - a study conducted in 2006, showing the impact of global warming on amphibian populations. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=105707


It took me all of three minutes to Google up these articles at the NSF. I'm pretty sure that you know how a search engine works, at least, well enough to have found them yourself. You obviously have no interest in them, and that's fine. But please, don't act as if studies such as these don't exist.

Your arguments to deny the very fact of global warming are pitiful. This is like listening to a kid deny that school exists, hoping that he won't have to attend.

[congressman]

Maybe self proclaimed Socialist Ted Turner will give up some of his land, since he's the largest land owner in the nation.. for those who lose their beach front homes from coastal flooding.

[congressman]

Bill Meck cracks me up.. actin like he understands the weather and all. Its a shame they let that man on TV, considering he points out almost daily that global warming is a hoax.

[Mr.Kimball]

Maybe self proclaimed Socialist Ted Turner will give up some of his land, since he's the largest land owner in the nation.. for those who lose their beach front homes from coastal flooding.

Maybe he would and maybe he wouldn't, but is Ted Turner not giving away billions and billions of dollars for the truely needy in this world? Hard to criticize a guy, in my opinion, that is willing to do that no matter what you may think of him. He certainly doesn't have to. He could just leave it stuck in his pocket.

[Old School]

For, let's say, the 30th time, I will restate where I place my faith - in the NSF, NAS, and the RAS. You are trying to set up a strawman, to obscure the fact that you place more faith in the special interests and their paid advocates.


The articles I linked were simply the ones toward the top of my Google search for papers on global warming, from the NAS and NSF. Normally, I'd be more than happy to Google up some more, but it really seems to be a waste of time, since you are simply going to reject them out of hand. If you won't accept items published by these groups, then we're really just chasing our tails.

The good news out of all of this is twofold. First, deniers of global warming are in the extreme minority (between 12 to 23%, depending on how you interpret the responses), and the number is shrinking as time goes by.

Secondly, the government is no longer being run by people that are directly linked to big oil, and the days of ignoring what science has to tell us are over.

Which was it, the NAS or NSF that was found guilty of having 20% of their scientist's having a personal interest in the project they were working on?

Global warming skeptics a extreme minority? What rock have you been living under? :biggrin:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/...e_removed/

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/...e_skeptic/

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-...ng_everyw/
Article dated June 26, 2009
"In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N.—13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.) "

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/...l_warming/

“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”
- PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-...ndal_in_h/

Note: The Sheer volume of scientists dissenting from UN IPCC climate views since 2007 has made it difficult for me to keep the database up to date. To read about the latest scientists to publicly speak out, see below and see: U.S. Senate’s report of now over 500 skeptical scientists (and constantly growing) of man-made global warming fears. See: Senate Report - It appears that man-made climate fears are literally as Meteorologist James Spann says below “rapidly running out of gas” both in peer-reviewed studies and in the claimed “consensus.”

Okay - let's make a deal.

If you continue to cite blatantly right wing sources, while ignoring the positions taken by the NAS and NSF (which, along with the Royal Academy of Science make up the three most highly respected institutions in science), I'll continue to call you on it.

As for the "facts" regarding the integrity of the data which the global warming models are built on, you might (if you really cared) try to check the legitimacy of your own sources.

The site you got your information from (Surfacestations.org) is run by Anthony Watts, who is a religious fanatic, and a global warming denier. His material (which you have hung your hat on) was rejected by the scientific journals, and was finally published by the Heartland Institute (a right wing think tank that conducts advocacy work for special interest groups).

There have been a number of arguments made about the quality of the work done by surfacestations.org - not the least of which is the incredibly small sample size of the number of stations that they have information on. Naturally, I'm sure this won't be a problem for you, since they are telling you what you want to hear, regarding global warming.

The problem for you is, the facts don't simply change because you want them to. You are willing to completely ignore solid, peer reviewed work that is published by the leading journals, so that you can embrace the findings of special interest groups that share your goal of denying reality.


Now - for your half of the deal.

Let's see if you can take the time to actually read the reports published by the NAS, NSF, or the Royal Academy of Science. If you choose to do so, then we can hold a discussion based on what the best minds of our time have to say, rather than a hand selected group of people serving the almighty dollar.

Deal?

As of 7/16/09 1003 of 1221 surface stations have been surveyed, that equals about 82%. IMO 82% is not an incredibly small amount.

Are you saying that these stations that are located within a few feet of asphalt parking lots, buildings, air conditioners/heating units etc. are giving reliable data?

[Old School]

Cap and tax will devastate our economy and grant more power to our federal government and it will have no benefit to our environment. Goldman Sachs and Al Gore will make out like bandits if the legislation passes but we will all be paying for their windfall, as will our children and grandchildren.

These people care nothing about the environment, Sachs, Gore and many others have already prepared themselves to become instant billionaires when we have to start buying carbon offsets.

[Old School]

LOL - I'll take it that you are in that group of dedicated FNC viewers that need such confirmation.

Nope, just one that is sick of listening to the guy's who have a man-crush on ole Barry.ecret:

[Hoot Gibson]

The rest of your post was worthless, and nothing more than you "re-hashing" the same tired strawmen that I have pointed out already.

Since you claim that you would "love to read it", I'll provide you some articles:
From the NSF - an article about the effects of global warming on algae and coral - dated September 9, 2009. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115611

From the NSF - a study conducted in 2003, showing large scale changes in the salinity of the ocean. http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr03145.htm

From the NSF - a study conducted in 2006, showing the impact of global warming on amphibian populations. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=105707


It took me all of three minutes to Google up these articles at the NSF. I'm pretty sure that you know how a search engine works, at least, well enough to have found them yourself. You obviously have no interest in them, and that's fine. But please, don't act as if studies such as these don't exist.

Your arguments to deny the very fact of global warming are pitiful. This is like listening to a kid deny that school exists, hoping that he won't have to attend.

Before you pull something out of joint patting yourself on the back for your self-proclaimed "googling up" ability, please point out which of these studies show that any global warming has occurred since 1998. Most people can find irrelevant information using a search engine. Your search results so far have been underwhelming, and I am being charitable. Maybe you should try "binging up" some links. I prefer Google but Microsoft claims that Bing is a more intelligent search engine.

Can you find any government site that refutes the claims that many of the surface monitoring stations have been surrounded by asphalt, chimneys, and air conditioning vents over the past 100 years or more? How about similar photos showing how well similar sites in Russia, China, and Bangladesh are maintained? Is it in those countries' respective self interests to produce reliable data that might torpedo Al Gore's portfolio and deny themselves an opportunity to gain a competitive edge over American industries?

If you want to post a relatively recent link to a study that shows that global temperatures are rising and that they fit the models used in the past, as I said, I would love to see it. No more red herrings, please.

There is a reason that so many global warming studies focus on local regional climate changes and that reason is obvious if one is willing to look. If you remove your head from the...sand, you might also realize that the cap and tax legislation being proposed by our Socialist-In-Chief will further damage a very weak economy.

I don't know how bad the economy is in the Ashland area but things are getting worse by the day here in Chimneyville. I look forward to some improvement late next year. Never was Reagan's statement about government being part of the problem more true than it is today.

[Hoot Gibson]

These people care nothing about the environment, Sachs, Gore and many others have already prepared themselves to become instant billionaires when we have to start buying carbon offsets.

I would add George Soros to that list. They will definitely be selling far more carbon credits than they will be buying. They will also be moving their investments away from the dollar and into other currencies, real estate, and precious metals. You do not need an Ivy League education to know that the federal government cannot continue to amass debt, raise taxes, and put people out of work at the current rate indefinitely. Ross Perot's giant sucking sound has relocated to Washington, DC.

[Squid]

There is a reason that so many global warming studies focus on local regional climate changes and that reason is obvious if one is willing to look. If you remove your head from the...sand, you might also realize that the cap and tax legislation being proposed by our Socialist-In-Chief will further damage a very weak economy.

There is simply no way to get through to you. No matter the evidence presented to you, your need to demonize anything that isn't labeled "conservative" is simply going to cause your mind to slam shut.

Reality is not going to enter the picture, unless it just happens to coincide with what you want it to be.


For what it's worth - the sand that I have my head buried in isn't nearly as dark as the rectum you seem to have inserted yours into. It probably doesn't stink nearly as bad here, either.

[Mr.Kimball]

There is simply no way to get through to you. No matter the evidence presented to you, your need to demonize anything that isn't labeled "conservative" is simply going to cause your mind to slam shut.

Reality is not going to enter the picture, unless it just happens to coincide with what you want it to be.


For what it's worth - the sand that I have my head buried in isn't nearly as dark as the rectum you seem to have inserted yours into. It probably doesn't stink nearly as bad here, either.

Hey Frances, there's that class you've been known and become famous for, for all these years. Nice of you to show all your new friends here on the new board, what you've shown others for years on the other. Kind of a "let's get aquainted" post, huh?

[Hoot Gibson]

There is simply no way to get through to you. No matter the evidence presented to you, your need to demonize anything that isn't labeled "conservative" is simply going to cause your mind to slam shut.

Reality is not going to enter the picture, unless it just happens to coincide with what you want it to be.


For what it's worth - the sand that I have my head buried in isn't nearly as dark as the rectum you seem to have inserted yours into. It probably doesn't stink nearly as bad here, either.

Obviously you are finding it easier to make personal insults than to find recent studies that make the case for global warming. How frustrating that must be for you.

Surely you can at least find a recent picture of a skinny polar bear or new snapshot of an iceberg that has broken off from the Antarctic ice shelf. But if insulting strangers on the internet makes you even a little less bitter toward the people who must encounter you in the real world, then I am here for you. Release that rage here and pet your dog.

Here is a global warming story that you will not see on MSNBC or the Daily Kos. Antarctic ice is expanding and it has been growing for some time now.

Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening

2002-01-18

WASHINGTON (AP) — New measurements show the ice in West Antarctica is thickening, reversing some earlier estimates that the sheet was melting.

Scientists concerned about global warming have worried that higher temperatures could melt the massive ice sheet, causing a rise in sea levels worldwide.

But new flow measurements for the Ross ice streams, using special satellite-based radars, indicate that movement of some of the ice streams has slowed or halted, allowing the ice to thicken, according to a paper in the Jan. 18 issue of the journal Science.

If the thickening is not merely part of some short-term fluctuation, it represents a reversal of the long retreat of the ice, say researchers Ian Joughin of the California Institute of Technology and Slawek Tulaczyk of the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking

April 18, 2009

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

[Hoot Gibson]

Hey Frances, there's that class you've been known and become famous for, for all these years. Nice of you to show all your new friends here on the new board, what you've shown others for years on the other. Kind of a "let's get aquainted" post, huh?

Personal attacks are just part of nature. They are a common side effect of treating liberalism with a steady diet of facts.

[Hoot Gibson]

Great description of global warming alarmists here - and ome very interesting and under publicized facts as well.

Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009
Let the cold times roll.

As cap-and-trade advocates tie their knickers in knots over so-called “global warming,” Mother Nature refuses to cooperate. Earth’s temperatures continue a chilling trend that began eleven years ago. As global cooling accelerates, global-warmists kick, scream, and push their pet theory — just like little kids who cover their ears and stomp their feet when older children tell them not to bother waiting up for Santa Claus on Christmas Eve.

The column contains some interesting information but this picture provides a great summary and explains why global warmers are now panicky climate change alarmists.

[Image: http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009...ce1979.jpg]

[Squid]

Hey Frances, there's that class you've been known and become famous for, for all these years. Nice of you to show all your new friends here on the new board, what you've shown others for years on the other. Kind of a "let's get aquainted" post, huh?

So, you have a problem with my responding to the personal attack, but not with the original cheap shot by Hooterboy?

Are you two secretly seeing each other? Is that the reason you felt the need to chastise me, and let his attack slide?

Your slip is showing, Kim.

[Squid]

Personal attacks are just part of nature. They are a common side effect of treating liberalism with a steady diet of facts.

If that is the case, I'd say most liberals are starving right now. The only thing you've provided are the very right wing rants that stoke the incessant need you have to be told how right you are. The April, 2009 article you linked relies on the position of Ian Allison - an unabashed global warming denier. It is exactly the type of article that I keep pointing out to you. His conclusions are his own - and are not published by the likes of the NAS, NSF, or the RAS. Instead, you post articles from National Review Online, and try to pass it off as being an unbiased, peer reviewed study. Pitiful. Just pitiful.

Perhaps you could take the time to find a study conducted (or at the very least) accepted by one of these organizations that supports your state of denial. I'll give you a clue - you won't find one.

As I said earlier - around 12 percent of the population (of which you are a member) is clinging to the idea that the globe is not warming. This entire debate has already moved into the sphere of how much is caused by man, and what can (or should) be done about it.

I think I'll make this my last post in this thread. You are simply incapable of facing reality in this case. To be honest, I'm a little dissapointed that I've wasted as much time as I have, trying to help get you over the hump of denial.

[Hoot Gibson]

If that is the case, I'd say most liberals are starving right now. The only thing you've provided are the very right wing rants that stoke the incessant need you have to be told how right you are. The April, 2009 article you linked relies on the position of Ian Allison - an unabashed global warming denier. It is exactly the type of article that I keep pointing out to you. His conclusions are his own - and are not published by the likes of the NAS, NSF, or the RAS.

Perhaps you could take the time to find a study conducted (or at the very least) accepted by one of these organizations that supports your state of denial. I'll give you a clue - you won't find one.

As I said earlier - around 12 percent of the population (of which you are a member) is clinging to the idea that the globe is not warming. This entire debate has already moved into the sphere of how much is caused by man, and what can (or should) be done about it.

I think I'll make this my last post in this thread. You are simply incapable of facing reality in this case. To be honest, I'm a little dissapointed that I've wasted as much time as I have, trying to help get you over the hump of denial.

My position is on the table. I have challenged you to provide evidence that there has been any global warming since 1998 and you have responded with nothing but insults. If you do not like the studies that I have posted, then continue to ignore them and post your own from whatever source you like to refute them. Alinsky's tactic of attacking the truth with ridicule and insults does not work with me, in case you have failed to notice.