CLIMATE CHANGE 'FRAUD'[

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Now now brother Steve...you knowz thoz iz fake!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Danno's version of Google Maps...

[Peikko 1,575]

The only reason people like Joe and Danno sieze on the 'GW is a hoax' articles is because they believe GW is an invention of Al Gore. Their hatred of this politician is so deep, so embedded that they can't see anything else. GW is a hoax because GW is a Democratic vision. Conservatives can see through this terrible plot and will save us all from GW government and taxes. Hurrah!

Al Gore is irrelevant, though good for humor now and then.

This is about government control, just as "healthcare", US Auto industry, bailouts, etc etc. are.

I'm guessing you don't read the books that don't have pictures.

"All GW scientists are liberals and are motivated to support governmental control" defense activated!

Edited December 2, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Science vs Stupid. Stupid always thinks stupid wins.

Since science is not involved in the GW hoax, I'd imagine the GWers are the stupid ones.

Real science says man-made GW is BS.

If cartoons and visual aid's make you feel better about yourself, so be it. Doesn't change reality.

Once again I need you to educate us here then about what constitutes "real science."

Please... I beg you to do so.

I could do that quite easily, however the burden of proof is not on me. I'm not asking for tax-payers to fund a hoax, you are.

Why is it a hoax?

Nobody's asking for any burden of proof. You claim its a hoax... so have the balls to educate us in simple words. Not much work needed for that- even in being wrong.

I mean... it IS quite easy...

Do you have your shovel to dig yourself a deeper hole Joe??

I'm not in a hole - you are. I know that "" makes you feel more confident in your non-argument, but it really doesn't make it hold any water.

this you've seen

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573

Not sure if you've seen

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0102737_pf.html

or this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_...imate_australia

or this

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...nravelling-now/

or this

There's a lot more, but it wouldn't matter would it? I can't convert a zealot from their church.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Uh-oh. Joseph has charts.

[Nina~ 431]

Uh-oh. Joseph has charts.

uh oh.. Joe has caught the BY virus

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Uh oh - speechless sheep!

[HAL 9000 96]

Science vs Stupid. Stupid always thinks stupid wins.

Since science is not involved in the GW hoax, I'd imagine the GWers are the stupid ones.

Real science says man-made GW is BS.

If cartoons and visual aid's make you feel better about yourself, so be it. Doesn't change reality.

Once again I need you to educate us here then about what constitutes "real science."

Please... I beg you to do so.

I could do that quite easily, however the burden of proof is not on me. I'm not asking for tax-payers to fund a hoax, you are.

Why is it a hoax?

Nobody's asking for any burden of proof. You claim its a hoax... so have the balls to educate us in simple words. Not much work needed for that- even in being wrong.

I mean... it IS quite easy...

Do you have your shovel to dig yourself a deeper hole Joe??

I'm not in a hole - you are. I know that "" makes you feel more confident in your non-argument, but it really doesn't make it hold any water.

this you've seen

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573

Not sure if you've seen

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0102737_pf.html

or this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_...imate_australia

or this

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...nravelling-now/

or this

There's a lot more, but it wouldn't matter would it? I can't convert a zealot from their church.

Article #1 is Danno's article. Ian Plimer has his history of being a naysayer

Article #2 says the man at East Anglia is temporarily stepping aside as the 'investigation' takes place. Not much science there.

Article #3 is not scientific either. Its an article reporting how people in government react to hyped up news.

Article #4 is a James Delingpole article, from a guy that says he is never wrong... that rehashes the links you posted already.

The pic you post comes from Dennis Avery, a fan of sunspots. The pic shows natural warming and cooling cycles. Mr Avery is also an agricultural economist. Not really a scientist. Try again. At least Ian Plimer is one... although quite off the mark as it relates to the biophysical foundations of GW science.

Then again... those articles, unscientific and all... do not address the simple question you say is easy to explain.

[Peikko 1,575]

Science vs Stupid. Stupid always thinks stupid wins.

Since science is not involved in the GW hoax, I'd imagine the GWers are the stupid ones.

Real science says man-made GW is BS.

If cartoons and visual aid's make you feel better about yourself, so be it. Doesn't change reality.

Once again I need you to educate us here then about what constitutes "real science."

Please... I beg you to do so.

I could do that quite easily, however the burden of proof is not on me. I'm not asking for tax-payers to fund a hoax, you are.

Why is it a hoax?

Nobody's asking for any burden of proof. You claim its a hoax... so have the balls to educate us in simple words. Not much work needed for that- even in being wrong.

I mean... it IS quite easy...

Do you have your shovel to dig yourself a deeper hole Joe??

I'm not in a hole - you are. I know that "" makes you feel more confident in your non-argument, but it really doesn't make it hold any water.

this you've seen

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573

Not sure if you've seen

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0102737_pf.html

or this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_...imate_australia

or this

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...nravelling-now/

or this

There's a lot more, but it wouldn't matter would it? I can't convert a zealot from their church.

All talking points from 'Thinking American'

However, lets move away from these and look at it in the cold light of day. The study of climate is a legitimate branch of science with quite a broad remit and the data produced has a range of practical applications aside from advising governments. This data needs to be accurate to be useful so that knowingly propagating a hoax would have practical adverse affects that would be rather more wide ranging than this falsely increasing government control and raising taxes so why would climate scientists knowingly buy into such a hoax?

There is an increasing trend to suggest that scientists are 'protecting' their interests by 'clinging' to a knowingly false theory. However, if you actually think about it, that's totally nonsensical. Of course funding is important but the funding goes to research, not to providing scientists with a fancy life style so unless you believe that scientists have no other way to generate interest in their branch of science than creating and perpetuating a false thesis they have no need to cling to a hoax in order to generate funding for research.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I know what Santa should bring Joseph this year...

A new globe.

[nowhereman 1]

Thats their only answer ever when they're proven wrong:

"do your homework"

"its beyond your comprehension"

"take some science classes"

Their GW BS hoax is unraveling before their eyes and yet they still hold firm. Gotta give them credit, like the guy who worked for Saddam and kept saying the US wasn't really invading and they weren't attacking.

It's actually quite the opposite... the people who steadfastly deny global warming & think we can just pollute the earth forever with absolutely no consequences are the same type of people who believed the earth was flat & crucified anyone who told them that it's round.

I'd challenge you to poll each and every person here who labels themselves a conservative or right wing, and ask them if they think pollution should be cleaned up. I'd wager that you'd find 100% think pollution is a bad thing. You prove yourself once again as the dishonest liberal that you are. You claim moderation, but it isn't true.

All of us support clean water, clean air, and an overall clean environment. You've basically just admitted that the ends justify the means, even if the means is a complete and utter lie.

You have an amazing talent to miss someone's point & totally misrepresent their opinion. I have stated on numerous occasions that I am disgusted by the fact that this issue is politicized. It is the most inherently non-political issue you can find, yet you once again are trying to make it a conservative vs "lib" issue. I am completely open to the possibility that some of the studies on global warming are inaccurate, but this whole conspiracy theory garbage based entirely on political bias is infuriating. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but nobody is entitled to their own truth.

[alienlovechild 75]

Ever wonder why the fear of a global nuclear war and a nuclear "winter" waned as the global warming movement started? Had to be some kind of disaster large enough to justify doomsday peddlers.

The idea of global harmony on GHG emissions is unlikely as there are more reasons and ways to get around emission targets yet the scientists neither study or care about that because it not their job. Geoengineering is a big gamble but one that's the most likely if the planet's climate get so bad that there's no denying it.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I'm a heretic my friend. Thats why they want to burn me at the stake.

[HAL 9000 96]

Ever wonder why the fear of a global nuclear war and a nuclear "winter" waned as the global warming movement started? Had to be some kind of disaster large enough to justify doomsday peddlers.

The idea of global harmony on GHG emissions is unlikely as there are more reasons and ways to get around emission targets yet the scientists neither study or care about that because it not their job. Geoengineering is a big gamble but one that's the most likely if the planet's climate get so bad that there's no denying it.

We may be put in a position where geoengineering is the only way to reverse any adverse effects. I think dabbling in that would be even more crazy than in just trying to cut our losses where we're at in this point in time.

Have you heard of the seeded sulfate particle plans for the upper atmosphere to reflect out solar radiation? Pretty scary, potentially dangerous idea IMO.

But as for the nuclear war scenario- I'm sure a few international treaties and the disintegration of the USSR had something to do with that, not the increase of science pointing to GW itself.

I'm a heretic my friend. Thats why they want to burn me at the stake.

Who wants that?

Still waiting on that easy education.