WM_Canada just got OWNED thanks to leftist scientist Al Gore

[Rogers]

Hi everybody! I can't believe it's taken me so long to find this place. Anyhoo, you seem to have quite an active board, both here and on the general discussion forum. I don't know much about transsexuals, their a bit thin on the ground where I am (overstatement of the year lol) so I'll maybe post more here. I'm surprised to see such a debate on global warming. It seems to be driven by one poster with what seems to me as a rather bigoted handle. From what I've seen of race_gender_country's posts on the subject, he is pushing lies and at best half-truths, for example, temperature rose first then CO2. This is a simplification of complex science:

In summary, the ice core data in no way contradict our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with what Gore says in the film. Indeed, Gore could have used the ice core data to make an additional and stronger point, which is that these data provide a nice independent test of climate sensitivity, which gives a result in excellent agreement with results from models.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

Author's bio:
Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary research interest is use of ice core records to document climate variability in the past. He also works on the geological history of ice sheets, on ice sheet dynamics, on statistical climate analysis, and on atmospheric chemistry.
He received a BA from Hampshire College at Amherst, MA, and M.S. and PhDs in Geological Sciences at the University of Washington, and was a DOE Global Change Graduate fellow. He was on the research faculty at the University of Colorado and taught at the University of Pennsylvania prior to returning to the University of Washington 2001. He has served on the national steering committees for the Ice Core Working Group, the Paleoenvironmental Arctic Sciences initiative, and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Initiative, all sponsored by the US National Science Foundation. He is an editor of the journal Quaternary Research. He has published more than 60 peer-reviewed articles in international journals.
http://www.ess.washington.edu/People/Faculty-bio/steig-bio.html

[White_Male_Canada]

Welcome.

Unfortunately algore`s full of shit as I`ve already explained.

They(realclimate.org) say this:
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

We say, A-haa-haaaa :lol: :

Climatechange argues that in the first 800 years temperature influenced co2. but in the remaining 4200 years of the trend it was the other way around ! co2 drives the warming. If the climate were that way, the interactions would lead to exponentially increasing temperatures in one of the possible directions. That has clearly not been observed in the data and so the positive-feedback hypothesis is thus falsified.

[Rogers]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the air bubbles in the ice cores are younger than the ice their embedded in. This, as I'm sure you'll understand, makes it look like temperature rises before CO2. Of course, this is a fact that the skeptics always forget to mention. Now there's a surprise!

Comparing this temperature record with the CO2 level in trapped bubbles brings another problem: the air in the bubbles can be hundreds or even thousands of years younger than the ice in which it is trapped. Air is trapped in a layer only after the snow above it has built up to a thickness of 70 metres or more, and the time this takes can vary greatly as the climate changes.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11640

There's loads more info. about the lies these so-called scientists tell at:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Hope this helps you with old race_gender_country!

[Quinn]

Rogers, am I right in assuming that your ID, combined with your avatar, is a reference to Rogers Rangers? If so, very cool. Either way, welcome to the forum.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the air bubbles in the ice cores are younger than the ice their embedded in. This, as I'm sure you'll understand, makes it look like temperature rises before CO2. Of course, this is a fact that the skeptics always forget to mention. Now there's a surprise!
Comparing this temperature record with the CO2 level in trapped bubbles brings another problem: the air in the bubbles can be hundreds or even thousands of years younger than the ice in which it is trapped. Air is trapped in a layer only after the snow above it has built up to a thickness of 70 metres or more, and the time this takes can vary greatly as the climate changes.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11640




I`ve just finished explaining the "ice bubbles" to another Canuck in one of my threads.

This directly from Caillon et al:

The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmosphericgreenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argonin air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (
240,000 years before thepresent). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change,although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during TerminationIII suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by800  200 years...

we obtain an overall uncertainty of_200 years, indicating that the increase
in CO2 lags Antarctic warming by 800 _ 200 years..

The similarity between CO2 and Vostok temperature and the associated short time lag (30, 33) support the suggestion of Petit et al. (1) that CO2 may be controlled in large part by the climate of the southern ocean. Although there is not yet clear support for this assertion (through
models, for example), a delay of about 800 years seems to be a reasonable time period... The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing...




It`s not just co2 that follows temperature changes but other gases also.The man-made-co2-is-the-main-cause hypothesis as the primary reason wouldn't explain why these other gases are correlated also.

CO2 does not antedate temperature increases.Temperature increases first, CO2 follows behind by up to 800 years.CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases.. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made. CO2 as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
Add to this information data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showing that the annual per-capital CO2 global emissions rate has flattened out since the early 80s. Based on these facts, no one can predict exponential increases in man-made CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. And if there's no exponential increase in CO2, there can be no global warming.

The only way the spurious theory gains adherence is from the UN and it`s flawed CGMs that are programmed to overstate potential warming response to enhanced greenhouse forcing by a huge margin.

[North_of_60]

The thruth is that CO2 is around 30% higher than it was in the pre-industrial period. According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. Your rigthwing ECO sources, as usual, are biaised.

[Rogers]

CO2 does not antedate temperature increases. It has always been Temperature increases first, CO2 follows behind by up to 800 years.
Your assertion that this is always the case is false, but it would appear that there is usually a lag, and we seem agreed that this may be a little as 200 years. This is a small fraction of the thousands of years that both temperature and CO2 go hand in hand (i.e. CO2 amplifies the warming). Most warming periods are most likely caused by changes in the earth's orbit (i.e. Milankovitch cylces), but several have been caused by greenhouse gases.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659


CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases.. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made. CO2 as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
Again, a half-truth. Ice cores show that levels of atmospheric CO2 have remained fairly steady at between 180 and 300 p.p.m. for the past 500,000 years, only to shoot up to greater than 380 p.p.m. since the industrial revolution. That's an increase of 27% on the maximum. Like most things in science, small does not necessarily mean insignificant, and a 27% increase on small, makes small even less insignificant. Rate of change is also important.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638


The only way the spurious theory gains adherence is from the UN and it`s flawed CGMs that are programmed to overstate potential warming response to enhanced greenhouse forcing by a huge margin.
Another myth and attack on the U.N. so typical of skeptics.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11649
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11653

Global warming is happening:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6679321.stm
Only man-made greenhouse gases explain the rate of change in the warming. Mann's "hockey stick" was never broken, just a bit bent, and all data published since 1999 have only served to strengthen it.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646

Nice try _Canada, but I wouldn't give up your day job. Like I said, lies and half-truths, simplifications and straw men. But no doubt you'll keep at it, just like Stewie below, and Spooky Mulder in the X-Files.

[Rogers]

Rogers, am I right in assuming that your ID, combined with your avatar, is a reference to Rogers Rangers? If so, very cool. Either way, welcome to the forum.

-Quinn
Thanks Quinn, the pic is of Robert Rogers. You have a MIGHTY "COOL" handle yourself, if you don't mind me saying. 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

Again, a half-truth. Ice cores show that levels of atmospheric CO2 have remained fairly steady at between 180 and 300 p.p.m. for the past 500,000 years, only to shoot up to greater than 380 p.p.m. since the industrial revolution.

Not quite. The so called “air is younger than ice” theory is just that, a theory. Both argon-39 and krypton-85 isotopes show that large amounts of ambient air are indeed included in the air inclusions in deep ice cores. Contamination from drilling fluids and more than twenty physical-chemical processes occurring in the ice before, during, and after drilling, make ice cores inaccurate not to mention contamination. Co2 levels in the air inclusions in the ice cores always seem to be about 100ppm below current levels.

More recently, during the Holocene (8,000 to 10,000 years before the present) when the temperature of the Arctic was 5°C warmer than now (Brinner and al. 2006), ice core records show a CO2 level of about 260 ppmv (IPCC 2007). This means that atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate, man-made EVEN LESS, and that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the ancient atmosphere are false.

The Vostok core with air inclusions showed co2 levels below 220 ppm between 30,000 to 110,000 years BP. Such low levels would mean extinction of certain plant species which has not been recorded by paleobotanists. Fossil leaf stomata indicate co2 levels up to 360ppm.

CO2 reconstructions reflect rapid changes with a significantly greater magnitude than the smooth and modest atmospheric CO2 decline to values oof260 ppmv inferred from the low-resolution Taylor Dome ice-core record. The data also confirm the regular occurrence of early Holocene atmospheric CO2 concentrations well above 300 ppmv, unknown from Antarctic ice cores but common in leaf-based time series.
(Friederike Wagner, Bent Aaby and Henk Visscher )


Only man-made greenhouse gases explain the rate of change in the warming. Mann's "hockey stick" was never broken, just a bit bent, and all data published since 1999 have only served to strengthen it.

"Just bent a bit", good one. :lol:

"Let`s just fake the science a little" Or as Tim wirth said, " We got to ride the global warming isssue.Even is the theory is wrong,we`ll be doing the right thing concerning economic and environmental policy." Wirth was responding to Maurice Strong who stated," We may get to the point where the only way to save the world (from AGW) will be for industrial civiliazation to colapse." With State Dept. Richard Benedick chiming in," A GW treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the (co2 enhanced) greenhouse effect."

E. Wegman, professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association,

"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported...The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable."

Prof. Wegman on M.Mann and the IPCC who claim even if Mann`s science was faulty he nevertheless came to the right conclusion, "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science."


Your assertion that this is always the case is false, but it would appear that there is usually a lag, and we seem agreed that this may be a little as 200 years. This is a small fraction of the thousands of years that both temperature and CO2 go hand in hand (i.e. CO2 amplifies the warming). Most warming periods are most likely caused by changes in the earth's orbit (i.e. Milankovitch cylces), but several have been caused by greenhouse gases.

Correlation is not causation, when you are doing real science. Having two things exist at the same time is not the identification of the cause for their existence.Additional studies of the CO2 data matched with temperature data show that the global average temperature INCREASES BEFORE the CO2 increases and the global average temperature DECLINES BEFORE the CO2 declines. CO2 increase appears to be temperature-increase induced, not the other way around.

But, that won’t sell in the political-induced scientific orthodoxy, because it does not produce a need for government intervention.

* global temperatures are currently rising;
* the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
* the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
* there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
* the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;
* if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
* the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
* water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;
* determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-µm water band in the 60–80% RH range; and
* the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.

The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the man-made- CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2.

[trish]

just wanted to welcome you to the forum, Rogers. :)

[classydtwngrl]

The thruth is that CO2 is around 30% higher than it was in the pre-industrial period. According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. Your rigthwing ECO sources, as usual, are biaised.

well............. cosign :D

[muhmuh]

anybody want to bet how long it will be until rodgers cant take the stupidity anymore?

[White_Male_Canada]

The thruth is that CO2 is around 30% higher than it was in the pre-industrial period. According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. Your rigthwing ECO sources, as usual, are biaised.



The WHOLE truth is that the overwhelming greenhouse gas is water vapor, probably 30 to 50 times more important than CO2. The CO2 attributed to man is minuscule, about 6 to 7 PgC/yr into an atmospheric reservoir variously estimated between 720 and 760 PgC. Water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2. The dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink, not man-made CO2, only 3.4 to 5% is man-made. CO2 as a result of man's activities is only about 0.12% of the greenhouse gases in total.

[Quinn]

anybody want to bet how long it will be until rodgers cant take the stupidity anymore?

LOL... I was thinking the same thing yesterday. How often can you listen to some poorly educated dullard continually insist that 2+2=5 before you just stop conferring upon them with so much as an ounce of credibility (let alone respectability)?

Still, if the pattern holds, Rogers we'll go through the same cycle as every other poster who takes part in the P&R forum – eventually arriving at the conclusion that WMC is both delusional and deceptive in the extreme.

When even the forum’s mods are laughing at you – as was the case the other day for poor WMC – you've become little more than a cautionary tale for other would be baffle wits.

-Quinn

[Rogers]

Yawn, indeed, _Canada. I was starting to fall asleep long before the end of your last post, and it would seem that so were you whilst you were typing it. You do tend to prattle on a bit, perhaps that's what muhmuh and Quinn are on about? I will say this for you, _Canada, you seem to know far too much, far too well, to be just a layman. :wink: The reason there are many errors in what you are saying is simple, it’s not because you don’t know what your saying, it’s because you have to lie to back up your arguments, because the evidence for AGW is now so strong. I’m right, aren’t I? :lol:

The so called “air is younger than ice” theory is just that, a theory.
So lets get this right, ice cores are alright if they back up your arguments, but not if they support others? :what You seem to shift what you believe in faster than a chameleon running across a brightly patterned duvet would change its colours. :lol: Again, it’s clear that you are lying. This is not a theory, its hard physics. The air trapped in snow needs a certain pressure above it before the bubbles form. Jaworowski debunked: http://community.tri-cityherald.com/?q=node/436/11311


More recently, during the Holocene (8,000 to 10,000 years before the present) when the temperature of the Arctic was 5°C warmer than now (Brinner and al. 2006), ice core records show a CO2 level of about 260 ppmv (IPCC 2007). This means that atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate, man-made EVEN LESS, and that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the ancient atmosphere are false.
You know well that we cannot match precisely :lol: our current climate with any in the past, especially when the data obtained from the ice cores are, as you are now correctly saying, imperfect. Again, it is clear that you are lying, and again, it’s down to physics: the earth’s orbit, tilt, albedo, sea-level, position of land masses, distribution of greenhouse gases between sinks, etc., are constantly changing. The recent addition of man only serves to complicate things even further.


Correlation is not causation, when you are doing real science. Having two things exist at the same time is not the identification of the cause for their existence.Additional studies of the CO2 data matched with temperature data show that the global average temperature INCREASES BEFORE the CO2 increases and the global average temperature DECLINES BEFORE the CO2 declines. CO2 increase appears to be temperature-increase induced, not the other way around.

But, that won’t sell in the political-induced scientific orthodoxy, because it does not produce a need for government intervention.

* global temperatures are currently rising;
* the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
* the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
* there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
* the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;
* if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
* the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
* water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;
* determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-µm water band in the 60–80% RH range; and
* the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.

The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the man-made- CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2.
Well, duh, to most of the above. I have already agreed with you that CO2 usually seems to lag temperature, and there is no climate scientist that I know of that says otherwise. The link I first posted concurs. You, however, have proved the point I was trying to make on this thread; that climate skeptics use this as a straw man against AGW. CO2 lags temperature is an informal fallacy in the AGW debate, because no climate scientist has ever said that CO2 is the initiator, or sole cause, of the current warming. It is however, the only GHG we can realistically do anything about, and that is why it hogs the news.

CHECK-MATE, _CANADA, AND IN ONLY FOUR MOVES!!!!

From some of the signatures I've seen here :lol: , _Canada, it would appear that you are easy in ways other than in just debating. ROTFLMAO. On the subject of climate change, try arguing against what AGW scientists actually say, rather than trying to put false statements in their mouths. That is what politicians do, not scientists, but it’s clear that it’s politics that are driving your posts here. Unfortunately for you, however, you can’t argue without using lies, half-truths, simplifications and straw men, because that’s all skeptics have.

[Rogers]

8)

[Rogers]

just wanted to welcome you to the forum, Rogers. :)
Thank you kindly, ma'am. :D :D :D

[White_Male_Canada]

So lets get this right, ice cores are alright if they back up your arguments, but not if they support others?
This is not a theory, its hard physics. The air trapped in snow needs a certain pressure above it before the bubbles form... the air in the bubbles can be hundreds or even thousands of years younger than the ice in which it is trapped.

Pfft~ Making me laugh now junior.

Ice core pressures below a certain depth force gases to transform into solid clathrates. Drilling cores decompress calthrates, decompression leads to sheeting, sheeting leads to solid clathrate decomposition which leads to CO2/O2/N2 escaping into the drilling liquids which means, concentrations appear lower.
Above the depth of clathrate formation CO2 levels were found to be "too high" and were ahem, adjusted. The fact you are unaware of the subtlety of the argument makes an exhange of ideas, ideas you are unaware of, taxing, painstaking and boring.



I have already agreed with you that CO2 usually seems to lag temperature, and there is no climate scientist that I know of that says otherwise. The link I first posted concurs. You, however, have proved the point I was trying to make on this thread; that climate skeptics use this as a straw man against AGW…


Nonsense, calculations have already demonstrated that spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto), creating a precursor to a command and control economy, to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is not only impractical it`s insane.


You know well that we cannot match precisely our current climate with any in the past...

Already knew that.

Here, “ let`s make the atmospheric data fit our agw agenda too. We`ll cherry pick our data to make it appear CO2 average was 292 ppmv instead of the real average of 335 ppmv ”

[White_Male_Canada]

You really better practice more before making futile attempts:

http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Dummies-James-Eade/dp/0764550039

Nice try junoir but your AGW religion is a running joke. 8)

[LG]

Nonsense, calculations have already demonstrated that spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto), creating a precursor to a command and control economy, to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is not only impractical it`s insane.

Sounds like numbers straight out of someone's ass. And whose ass did you drag these numbers out of? Because even the most conservative estimates suggest it's at least 20 times that.

Too small, you say? Well, here's the thing: these are only estimates, mostly conservative ones made by conservatives, and Kyoto is only a first step, anyway.

[Rogers]

Well, I can't say I'm surprised. :smh Like I said from my first post, _Canada had been pushing lies and half-truths, and what do I find him doing, but trying to make it look like I've said something that I didn't. I don't really understand why you've resorted to doing that, _Canada, other than that you knew you were losing the debate, but as far as I'm concerned it's game over. YOU CAN'T CHEAT AT CHESS, _CANADA! I now understand why people don't like you here, because you clearly are just a sad old man. And what do the last two parts of the following have to do with what I did say?




So lets get this right, ice cores are alright if they back up your arguments, but not if they support others?
This is not a theory, its hard physics. The air trapped in snow needs a certain pressure above it before the bubbles form... the air in the bubbles can be hundreds or even thousands of years younger than the ice in which it is trapped.

Pfft~ Making me laugh now junior.

Ice core pressures below a certain depth force gases to transform into solid clathrates. Drilling cores decompress calthrates, decompression leads to sheeting, sheeting leads to solid clathrate decomposition which leads to CO2/O2/N2 escaping into the drilling liquids which means, concentrations appear lower.
Above the depth of clathrate formation CO2 levels were found to be "too high" and were ahem, adjusted. The fact you are unaware of the subtlety of the argument makes an exhange of ideas, ideas you are unaware of, taxing, painstaking and boring.



I have already agreed with you that CO2 usually seems to lag temperature, and there is no climate scientist that I know of that says otherwise. The link I first posted concurs. You, however, have proved the point I was trying to make on this thread; that climate skeptics use this as a straw man against AGW…


Nonsense, calculations have already demonstrated that spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto), creating a precursor to a command and control economy, to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is not only impractical it`s insane.


You know well that we cannot match precisely our current climate with any in the past...

Already knew that.

Here, “ let`s make the atmospheric data fit our agw agenda too. We`ll cherry pick our data to make it appear CO2 average was 292 ppmv instead of the real average of 335 ppmv ”

GAME OVER: _CANADA HAS BEEN AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED FOR CHEATING. :smh
Your cheating, _Canada, has only served to strengthen my observations about you. And what does that say about the causes you support, eh?

[White_Male_Canada]

Pfft~ Making me laugh now junior.

Ice core pressures below a certain depth force gases to transform into solid clathrates. Drilling cores decompress calthrates, decompression leads to sheeting, sheeting leads to solid clathrate decomposition which leads to CO2/O2/N2 escaping into the drilling liquids which means, concentrations appear lower.
Above the depth of clathrate formation CO2 levels were found to be "too high" and were ahem, adjusted. The fact you are unaware of the subtlety of the argument makes an exhange of ideas, ideas you are unaware of, taxing, painstaking and boring.



I have already agreed with you that CO2 usually seems to lag temperature, and there is no climate scientist that I know of that says otherwise. The link I first posted concurs. You, however, have proved the point I was trying to make on this thread; that climate skeptics use this as a straw man against AGW…


Nonsense, calculations have already demonstrated that spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto), creating a precursor to a command and control economy, to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is not only impractical it`s insane.


You know well that we cannot match precisely our current climate with any in the past...



Here, “ let`s make the atmospheric data fit our agw agenda too. We`ll cherry pick our data to make it appear CO2 average was 292 ppmv instead of the real average of 335 ppmv ”


GAME OVER: _CANADA HAS BEEN AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED FOR CHEATING.
Your cheating.. And what do the last two parts of the following have to do with what I did say?

That`s it ? That`s your best agw apostle? I`m cheating because I place a generic qoute about how scientists manipulated and ignored evidence, cherry-picking their data to purvey a concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration ! ?

Drilling cores decompress calthrates, decompression leads to sheeting, sheeting leads to solid clathrate decomposition which leads to CO2/O2/N2 escaping into the drilling liquids which means, concentrations appear lower.

[White_Male_Canada]

Nonsense, calculations have already demonstrated that spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto), creating a precursor to a command and control economy, to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is not only impractical it`s insane.

Sounds like numbers straight out of someone's ass. And whose ass did you drag these numbers out of? Because even the most conservative estimates suggest it's at least 20 times that.

Too small, you say? Well, here's the thing: these are only estimates, mostly conservative ones made by conservatives, and Kyoto is only a first step, anyway.

Already knew that:

" Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance." Jacques Chirac


U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research will give you a liberal number of 7/100ths of a degree. But that is based on IPCC estimates based on flawed CGMs and based on complete implementation, which will never happen and was factored into the 0.0035C number. 0.07°C is an amount so small that it cannot be reliably measured by ground-based thermometers. U of V Environmental Sciences gives a moderate estimate number, 0.04C.

We don't even know the absolute mean surface temperature of the planet within +/- 0.7 °C anyway.

[guyone]

Man it's sooo hot. Maybe there's something to this global warming...MAYBE IT'S CALLED SUMMER!

[trish]

" Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance." Jacques Chirac

oh, this is a scientific refutation. i'm now convinced. the current climate change that dates back to but not before the industrial revolution is caused by sunspots. i see the light. let's nominate WMC for the Nobel Prize. he has shown us how to expand the bounds to scientific argument beyond the confines of reason and objectivity.

[LG]

" Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance." Jacques Chirac

oh, this is a scientific refutation. i'm now convinced. the current climate change that dates back to but not before the industrial revolution is caused by sunspots. i see the light. let's nominate WMC for the Nobel Prize. he has shown us how to expand the bounds to scientific argument beyond the confines of reason and objectivity.

LMAO!

This is the second time that WMC misquotes Chirac. To do so once is forgivable, but to do so again that is unacceptable, especially considering I lambased him before. Chirac actually said:

An equitable agreement is one that provides for an independent and impartial compliance mechanism, possessing irrefutable data and able to decide remedial political and financial penalties in case of non-compliance. That would avoid the "free-rider" problem, in which a handful of nations make the initial, and most difficult efforts, only to find themselves exposed to unacceptable competitive distortions.

By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace. We are demonstrating our capacity to assert control over our fate in a spirit of solidarity, to organise our collective sovereignty over this planet, our common heritage.

[Rogers]

Right, _Canada, I'll try and keep things as simple as possible for you, because as Quinn appears to have rightly said, you do seem to be a dullard. Maybe that's why you cheat, because you can't keep up with the intelligence of the rest of the posters here?

The "CO2 lags temperature" argument against AGW is pushed by only a few scientists who all appear to be in the pay of big oil. Most skeptic scientists know that it's not an argument against AGW, and don't use it, because it would damage their credibility.


CO2 lags temperature is an informal fallacy in the AGW debate, because no climate scientist has ever said that CO2 is the initiator, or sole cause, of the current warming. It is however, the only GHG we can realistically do anything about, and that is why it hogs the news.

This tactic is commonly called a Straw Man.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Like I've said several times now, you, _Canada, have been pushing lies and half-truths.

The CO2 lags temperature argument assumes that there is one and only one mechanism heating and cooling the earth. The truth is that there are dozens of factors. A few of them are:
The sun (relatively minor changes but still a factor)
Our planets orbital cycles (Milankovich and other cycles). The closer we are to the sun the hotter we get.
Albedo: Dark rock absorbs far more light than a bright white glacier
Water vapor: a powerful greenhouse gas. The hotter the earth gets the more water vapor our atmosphere can hold.
CO2
Methane
aerosols
Plant respiration
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/lags-not-leads.html

[insert_namehere]

Rogers:

Just a head's up... when replying to WMC, NEVER include a link from Wikipedia... it gives him a tangent to go off on.

[Rogers]

Rogers:

Just a head's up... when replying to WMC, NEVER include a link from Wikipedia... it gives him a tangent to go off on.
Thanks for the warning, insert_namehere, I'm not that big a fan of Wikipedia myself, but it was only for a definition. Surely he can't be that bad? The way you guys here keep talking about him, makes me think the man's got mental problems. :screwy

[insert_namehere]

Honestly, I may be in the minority in regards to WMC's mental equilibrium, but I think he's actually got all the lights on - he just tends to trot out the same tropes all the time... such as Wikipedia is the worst reference imaginable, etc., etc.

He'd save himself a lot of typing and us a lot of reading if he'd just assign numbers to some of his replies... in this instance call it... um.... #6

[White_Male_Canada]

Deflection as a device is not clever, merely admittance of either ignorance or simply being wrong.

Now that proxy ice cores have been dealt with by myself you now wish to get back to AGW and the IPCC. Well, let`s have at it junior.

John McCain and Joe Lieberman | February 13, 2007 (Boston Globe)

"THERE IS NOW a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it. The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human activities like burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing most of the observed global warming..."

McCain and Liberman base their veiws on:

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis:

" ... Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations…

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone…

It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica (see Figure SPM-4). The observed patterns of warming, including greater
warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing.

The ability of coupled climate models to simulate the observed temperature evolution on each of six continents provides stronger evidence of human influence on climate…"

Despite all the qaulifiers or "most,very likely" these statements are made to imply that man is the main cause of gw by their very own words.

The claims are based on spurious CGMs. Modelers cannot account for the temperature rise of the past 30 years. But, they couldn`t account for the medieval warming period either. Most noticably absent is their now infamous "hockey stick" in which the UN attempted to wipe the warming period from the history books.

Alan Thorpe, head of NERC places his faith in CGMs, " The size of the recently observed global warming, over a few decades, is significantly greater than the natural variations in long simulations with climate models... "

The issue is reduced to one of faith in the UN`s CGMs.

Problem is:

1. Of the UN’s six modeled scenarios, three are extreme exaggerations. Two assume that population will reach 15bn by 2100, though demographers say population will peak at 10bn in 40 years and then plummet.

2. CGMs relied on by the UN did not predict the considerable cooling of the oceans that has occurred since 2003.

3.The UN’s models also failed to predict the halt to the rise in methane concentrations in the air that began in 2001. And they did not predict the timing or size of the El Nino which hiked temperature in 1998.

4.UN’s models have recently been found to have over-projected the observed rise in sea temperatures.

One of the biggest Kahunas, Freeman Dyson," “This is a dubious business(CGMs). The experts know it`s no better than the input. In this case we simply don`t yet know what`s going to happen to the carbon in the atmosphere because we don`t know what already has happened or is happening.The atmosphere is the tail, the ground is the dog…."

Within CGMs, the behaviour of turbulent fluids or the processes that occur within clouds, our knowledge of the physics is incomplete and therefore requires the extensive use of parameterisation.

So, so much for your UN,M.Mann, it`s IPCC and CGMs. 8)

sources: ippc 4th ass.2007/bglobe/monkton/lindzen/mit/U.V.

[Rogers]

Deflection as a device is not clever, merely admittance of either ignorance or simply being wrong.

Now that the ice cores have been dealt with you now wish to get back to AGW and the IPCC. Well, let`s have at it junior.
Unbelievable. Well, if you can't be bothered reading and replying to what I've actually written, then I'm sure as hell ain't going to keep returning the favour to a low-down, lying cheat, especially when your last post is a whole frigging page.

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is dead. No doubt, you'll have some more crap to spout after this last post of mine, but I have far better things to do with my time than to waste it on a dumb asshole. I'd say that I hoped that some of the points that I've made about you and your arguments here have been taken on board by the other posters, but I suspect they already knew. :banghead :banghead :banghead

[White_Male_Canada]

Deflection as a device is not clever, merely admittance of either ignorance or simply being wrong.

Now that the ice cores have been dealt with you now wish to get back to AGW and the IPCC. Well, let`s have at it junior.
Unbelievable. Well, if you can't be bothered reading and replying to what I've actually written, then I'm sure as hell ain't going to keep returning the favour to a low-down, lying cheat, especially when your last post is a whole frigging page.

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is dead. No doubt, you'll have some more crap to spout after this last post of mine, but I have far better things to do with my time ...

Hey, not my fault you cut `n paste from a Mann site religiously (Realclimate.org). Fuck junior, what did you expect qouting from junkscience boy himself M. Mann, who`s bogus "hockey stick" is so phony and fake even the ippc 2007 report dumped it.

It is best you quit now because the writing is on the wall. One of the fundamental pillars of AGW has been demolished, proxy ice core data. Without the "low level ice core co2" the whole house of AGW cards fall apart.

You`re upset, seeing your religion being methodically picked apart, understandable. Get over it junior, move along. 8)

[Rogers]

Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions.

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

So, which one of the (Canada) 60 skeptics are you, strawman _Canada? And have you seen the Wizard about getting a brain yet? 8)
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1056
(As you will see, I've taken the liberty to pre-empt what would have been your next line of argument with this link, because you are such a boring waste of time. CHECK-MATE AGAIN, _CANADA! So what will your next post be about now then? Mmmmm, I'm guessing another rant against Kyoto, the U.N., and/or CGM's? I simply can't wait to find out, not! Dumbass!)

[White_Male_Canada]

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Correlation is not causation and neither is consensus science.

When polled individually by Gallup (climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union) numbers revealed that a vast majority doubt that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far).

Finally, the U.N.`s CGM predictions are founded not only on an exaggerated forcing-to-temperature conversion factor justified neither by observation nor by physical law, but also on an excessive rate of increase in airborne carbon dioxide. Added to that is the fact that said CGMs cannot accurately retrodict the past either.

You`re a waste of bandwidth and I think it`s almost time to resurrect the VillageIdiot Pwned Page. 8)

[trish]

Finally, the U.N.`s CGM predictions are founded not only on an exaggerated forcing-to-temperature conversion factor justified neither by observation nor by physical law this lie was brought to you by WMC and is neither justified by observation nor by physical law. :roll:

[Rogers]

Gallup
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Finally, the U.N.`s CGM predictions are founded not only on an exaggerated forcing-to-temperature conversion factor justified neither by observation nor by physical law, but also on an excessive rate of increase in airborne carbon dioxide. Added to that is the fact that said CGMs cannot accurately retrodict the past either.
Another rant, as predicted. That's three check-mates I've had now.



Finally, the U.N.`s CGM predictions are founded not only on an exaggerated forcing-to-temperature conversion factor justified neither by observation nor by physical law this lie was brought to you by WMC and is neither justified by observation nor by physical law. :roll:
I concur, absolutely!


I think it`s almost time to resurrect the VillageIdiot Pwned Page. 8)
:what Looks like I've got you majorly pissed. On this thread, not only did you resort to taking lines from two different posts of mine, and turn them into one to make it look like I said something I didn't (i.e. you cheated), but you falsely accused me of deflection, when it was you who was deflective. I never veered from the "CO2 lags temperature" argument until you did, and that was after I clearly pointed out that this is a straw man. 8)

[LG]

When polled individually by Gallup (climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union) numbers revealed that a vast majority doubt that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far).


I believe you just lost the argument here. :lol:

It was 1992 Gallup poll (15 years old) of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union that showed that the majority doubted that there had been any identifiable man-caused warming to that date (and that date was 1992- yes, 15 years ago).

So not only are we talking about a Gallup poll, not only did scientists assert that global warming had not yet taken place (as opposed to saying that it never would take place) but said poll is 15 years old, even though when cutting and pasting you left the words "to date" in there to make it look like it's recent. In other words, you lied. And you can look that one up on the net if you like.

Debating is like chess you say? Now let's see your king get out of this.
8)

[Rogers]

When polled individually by Gallup (climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union) numbers revealed that a vast majority doubt that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far).


I believe you just lost the argument here. :lol:

It was 1992 Gallup poll (15 years old) of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union that showed that the majority doubted that there had been any identifiable man-caused warming to that date (and that date was 1992- yes, 15 years ago).

So not only are we talking about a Gallup poll, not only did scientists assert that global warming had not yet taken place (as opposed to saying that it never would take place) but said poll is 15 years old, even though when cutting and pasting you left the words "to date" in there to make it look like it's recent. In other words, you lied. And you can look that one up on the net if you like.

Debating is like chess you say? Now let's see your king get out of this.
8)
Thank you, LG. I just saw the word, Gallup, and laughed. :lol: I didn't know the poll was actually that old. ROTFLMAO. But I somehow suspect, _Canada, did though. :wink: The "Science" article I cited was from December, 2004, and analyzed papers from 1993-2003.

[Rogers]

8)

[Rogers]

:lol:

[Rogers]

:lol:

[White_Male_Canada]

It was 1992 Gallup poll (15 years old) of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union that showed that the majority doubted that there had been any identifiable man-caused warming to that date (and that date was 1992- yes, 15 years ago).

Newsflash sport, we`ve been "warming" since oh I don`t know, 1680 ! Part of the warming that has gone on for about the last 15,000 years.

So now since I`ve dispatched proxy ice core data as flawed and inaccurate, the U.N.`s CGMs as nothing more than estimations you are all now down to polls and " Well that`s it. It`s a consensus! Consensus science is pure science." Any rational sane person would call that poppycock.

No one sees polls and consensus as science. The AASC, " Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties – The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions – called “verification” – is simply impossible..." ACNielsen: "50 percent thought [global warming] was caused by human activities," and that "Americans [are] least convinced" So we can assume as many disagree.



And please, attempting to come to the rescue of the VillageIdiot is akin to trying to extinguish someone who`s on fire with gasoline.

[Rogers]

It was 1992 Gallup poll (15 years old) of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union that showed that the majority doubted that there had been any identifiable man-caused warming to that date (and that date was 1992- yes, 15 years ago).

Newsflash sport, we`ve been "warming" since oh I don`t know, 1680 ! Part of the warming that has gone on for about the last 15,000 years.
Duh, again. If you'd read any of what I said above, then you would have realized that I was agreeing with you on this.


So now since I`ve dispatched proxy ice core data as flawed and inaccurate, the U.N.`s CGMs as nothing more than estimations you are all now down to polls and " Well that`s it. It`s a consensus! Consensus science is pure science." Any rational sane person would call that poppycock.
All science is flawed, fool!


[b]And please, attempting to come to the rescue of the VillageIdiot is akin to trying to extinguish someone who`s on fire with gasoline.
:what If anyone is a Village Idiot here, it's definitely you. :screwy

[Rogers]

Oh yeah, I forgot, you're still owned! 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

All science is flawed, fool!

That sentence clearly demonstrates how pedestrian, prosaic, pedantic, vapid and generally idiotic you really are. You`re quoting from a M.Mann website makes it an open and shut case.

Never stated climate doesn`t change, never stated man doesn`t play a minor part.

It`s the extreme left that maintains man is responsible for the majority of warming when in fact that is impossible as I`ve proven over and over in this forum:


-CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases.. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made. CO2 as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

-Mankind (anthropomorphic climate change) IS NOT the primary cause of GW now or for instance during the Medieval period when it was actually warmer than today. Mankind was neither responsible for the little ice age either or the warming taking place on Mars or Pluto today.
Greenland was called Green-Land for a reason, it was green. The Vikings lived there during the Medieval warming period and it was hot enough to cultivate grapes. Did the Vikings drive SUV`s !?

-CO2 does not antedate temperature increases. Temperature increases first, CO2 follows behind by up to 800 years.

-There is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all of the IR in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands.Added CO2 would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption.Each time CO2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It`s been calculated that CO2 absorbance is 376 units per km for 380 ppm. Doubling CO2 at it`s absorbtion bandwidth would only cause an increase IR absorbtion of about 0.17%.

-Temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric CO2 has been rising. CO2 only plays a very minor part in climate change and man-made CO2, even less.

-Spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto) and creating a precursor to a command and control economy only to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is just not worth it.

-" Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance."
Jacques Chirac at The Hauge 2000


-The IPCC claimed climate change to be "very likely" 90% man-made. All scientific statistical tests are subject to a 95% confidence interval and must be proven with objective data and analysis Therefore, the IPCC`s “very likely” claim is opnion, not scientific fact.

-National Research Council report on the UN`s IPCC/Mann chart stated that Mann`s method was biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped temp. chart, that uncertainties had been underestimated. In otherwords, the UN`s IPCC Temp. chart was false.

-Last year the National Academies convened a committee and asked scientists to model temperatures from a thousand years ago to within 0.5 °C (0.9 °F). None claimed they could, except for Mr. "hockey stick" himself, Mike Mann. And we all know his "hockey stick" temp. chart has been debunked long ago,regardless of "peer review" aka, fellow travellers.

-Climate models are programmed to overstate potential warming response to enhanced greenhouse forcing by a huge margin.

-The 2007 IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (pols) was released before the report itself so that " Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. See Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15 "
They released the IPCC's the political conclusions first, and then will adjust the actual science to fit them.

-Climate change related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.

-Of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and believe that climate change requires dramatic government action.

-The U.S. federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in 2004.

-Global alarmists are dependant upon these funds and must continue to produce doomsday scenarios.


-Algore owns oil stock (oxy) and owned a zinc mine.

-Algore lied in his book and has a history of exaggerations, I "took the initiative in creating the Internet", there was " no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law" ( it was) , stated he " found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal" and of course, "within as little as 10 years (GW will) make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization."


-Alogre`s his manions use 20 X the electricity of an average home. he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy “carbon offsets” through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.


Algore`s book, An Inconvenient Truth is rife with either one sided, misleading,speculative,exaggerated or just plain wrong statements

[Rogers]

All science is flawed, fool!

That sentence clearly demonstrates how pedestrian, prosaic, pedantic, vapid and generally idiotic you really are. You`re quoting from a M.Mann website makes it an open and shut case.
Then I'll say it again, shall I. All science is flawed! That is why it almost always becomes redundant given enough time. If it wasn't flawed in some way, then why the hell would it ever become redundant? There was a time when the best human minds thought that the world was flat. Our understanding of how things work evovles over time, and we come up with new and better ways to test our ideas. I'm sorry if you're too much of a dumbass to realize that. Like I've already suggested, you really should pay the Wizard of Oz a visit, strawman _Canada.


-CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases.. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made. CO2 as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
I've dealt with this already. Small does not mean insignificant.


-Mankind (anthropomorphic climate change) IS NOT the primary cause of GW now or for instance during the Medieval period when it was actually warmer than today. Mankind was neither responsible for the little ice age either or the warming taking place on Mars or Pluto today.
Greenland was called Green-Land for a reason, it was green. The Vikings lived there during the Medieval warming period and it was hot enough to cultivate grapes. Did the Vikings drive SUV`s !?
I've also dealt with this already, and you agreed!


-CO2 does not antedate temperature increases. Temperature increases first, CO2 follows behind by up to 800 years.
Again, I've already dealt with this. It's not an argument against AGW, it's a straw man.


-Spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto) and creating a precursor to a command and control economy only to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is just not worth it.
If you think it's all a conspiracy, then I'll never be able to change your mind. Best to see a psychiatrist, and discuss your fears.


-" Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance."
Jacques Chirac at The Hauge 2000
According to LG, this is a misquote, and you've misquoted him three times now. It's clear that you are lying again.


-The IPCC claimed climate change to be "very likely" 90% man-made. All scientific statistical tests are subject to a 95% confidence interval and must be proven with objective data and analysis Therefore, the IPCC`s “very likely” claim is opnion, not scientific fact.
The IPCC had to lower their certainty level due too political pressure from a handful of countries, including China. You should know this, but you are lying again. Why do you lie so much, _Canada? It ain't condusive to good relations.


-Climate models are programmed to overstate potential warming response to enhanced greenhouse forcing by a huge margin.
Bullshit. This is solely your opinion.


-The 2007 IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (pols) was released before the report itself so that " Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. See Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15 "
They released the IPCC's the political conclusions first, and then will adjust the actual science to fit them.
Like I've just said above, the IPCC had to change it's scientific report because of political pressure. You are putting an opposite spin on what actually happened, i.e. you are lying again. Didn't your mama tell you not to lie, _Canada?


-Climate change related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.

-Of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and believe that climate change requires dramatic government action.

-The U.S. federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in 2004.

-Global alarmists are dependant upon these funds and must continue to produce doomsday scenarios.
Again with the conspiracy talk. The Whitehouse doesn't believe in AGW, so why the hell would it give money to scientists they thought were biased? Get some help, dude.


-Algore owns oil stock (oxy) and owned a zinc mine.

-Algore lied in his book and has a history of exaggerations, I "took the initiative in creating the Internet", there was " no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law" ( it was) , stated he " found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal" and of course, "within as little as 10 years (GW will) make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization."

-Alogre`s his manions use 20 X the electricity of an average home. he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy “carbon offsets” through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

Algore`s book, An Inconvenient Truth is rife with either one sided, misleading,speculative,exaggerated or just plain wrong statements
Another rant, this time against Al Gore, who is not a scientist. Hardly a scientific argument, now is it, _Canada?

Well, _Canada, more lies, half-truths, simplifications and straw men. I'm pretty sure I've heard them all now. You're becoming very boring.

[LG]

It was 1992 Gallup poll (15 years old) of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union that showed that the majority doubted that there had been any identifiable man-caused warming to that date (and that date was 1992- yes, 15 years ago).

Newsflash sport, we`ve been "warming" since oh I don`t know, 1680 ! Part of the warming that has gone on for about the last 15,000 years.

So now since I`ve dispatched proxy ice core data as flawed and inaccurate, the U.N.`s CGMs as nothing more than estimations you are all now down to polls and " Well that`s it. It`s a consensus! Consensus science is pure science." Any rational sane person would call that poppycock.

No one sees polls and consensus as science. The AASC, " Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties – The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions – called “verification” – is simply impossible..." ACNielsen: "50 percent thought [global warming] was caused by human activities," and that "Americans [are] least convinced" So we can assume as many disagree.



And please, attempting to come to the rescue of the VillageIdiot is akin to trying to extinguish someone who`s on fire with gasoline.

Newflash sport, you lied in your post to make it seem as if the data was recent. You haven't got away with this one. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of what you wrote- it's pointless. Although I did read Rogers' post and it seems you've misused that Chirac quote again. And you've misspelled The Hague. Naughty boy...

Not only did the study not dispute that climate change is possible but- you failed to mention- it was carried out 15 years ago. You lied. It's a simple as that.

Anything else you say in this thread is worthless becuase you've been caught with your pants down. No amount of wriggling can get you out of this, no "polls are not trustworthy" shit (considering you posted the poll as it was, suggesting that you-at least- trusted that it disproved our case).

It's all over. I don't know why Rogers is even bothering to argue with you (okay, I know why- it's fun!). But this time you've been caught out.

http://www.thepostcard.com/gofetch/rack/rc127.jpg

[White_Male_Canada]

All science is flawed, fool

So Flemming discovering lysozyme was flawed, he was wrong. Newton was totally flawed in describing the laws of gravity, etc,etc.



Another rant, this time against Al Gore, who is not a scientist.

Algore`s a propagandist:

Algore`s book, An Inconvenient Truth is rife with either one sided, misleading,speculative,exaggerated or just plain wrong statements:

One-sided statements


• It neglects to mention that aggregate mortality and mortality rates due to extreme weather events declined dramatically during the 20 th century.

• It neglects to mention the circumstances that make it reasonable rather than blameworthy for America to be the biggest CO 2 emitter: the world's largest economy, abundant fossil energy resources, markets integrated across continental distances, the world's most mobile population.

• The book impugns the motives of so-called global warming skeptics but never acknowledges the special-interest motivations of those whose research grants, direct mail income, industrial policy privileges, regulatory power, prosecutorial plunder, or political careers depend on keeping the public in a state of fear about global warming.

• AIT never addresses the obvious criticism that the Kyoto Protocol is all economic pain for no environmental gain and that regulations stringent enough to measurably cool the planet would be a “cure” worse than the alleged disease.

Misleading statements

• AIT implies that, throughout the past 650,000 years, changes in CO 2 levels preceded and largely caused changes in global temperature, whereas the causality mostly runs the other way: CO 2 changes followed global temperature changes.

• It ignores the societal factors that typically overwhelm climatic factors in determining people's risk of damage or death from hurricanes, floods, drought, tornadoes, wildfires, and disease.

• It implies that a study, which found that none of 928 science articles (actually abstracts) denied a CO 2 -global warming link, shows that Gore's apocalyptic view of global warming is the “consensus” view among scientists.

• It reports that 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists accused Bush of distorting science, without mentioning that the scientists acted as members of a 527 political group set up to promote the Kerry for President Campaign.



Exaggerated statements

• AIT hypes the importance and exaggerates the certainty of the alleged link between global warming and the frequency and severity of tropical storms.

• Claims polar bears “have been drowning in significant numbers,” based on a report that found four drowned polar bears in one month of one year, following an abrupt storm.

• Portrays the collapse in 2002 of the Larson-B ice shelf—a formation the “size of Rhode Island”—as harbinger of doom. For perspective, the Larson-B was 180 th the size of Texas and 1/246 th the size of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS).

• AIT presents a graph suggesting that China's new fuel economy standards are almost 30% more stringent than the current U.S. standards. In fact, the Chinese standards are only about 5% more stringent.

Speculative statements

• AIT blames global warming for the record-breaking 37-inch downpour in Mumbai, India, in July 2005, even there has been no trend in Mumbai rainfall for the month of July in 45 years.

• It blames global warming for recent floods in China's Sichuan and Shandong provinces, even though more damaging floods struck those areas in the 19 th and early 20 th centuries.

• It blames global warming for the disappearance of Lake Chad, a disaster more likely stemming from a combination of regional climate variability and societal factors such as population increase and overgrazing.

• AIT warns that a doubling of pre-industrial CO 2 levels to 560 ppm will so acidify seawater that all optimal areas for coral reef construction will disappear by 2050—implausible because coral calcification rates have increased as ocean temperatures and CO 2 levels have risen, and today's main reef builders evolved and thrived during the Mesozoic Period, when atmospheric CO 2 levels hovered above 1,000 ppm for 150 million years and exceeded 2,000 ppm for several million years.

• It warns of “significant and alarming structural changes” in the submarine base of the WAIS, but does not tell us what those changes are or why they are “significant and alarming.” The WAIS has been retreating since the early Holocene. At the rate of retreat observed in the 1990s, the WAIS should disappear in about 7,000 years.

• It warns that half the Greenland Ice Sheet could “slide” into the sea, even though the ice sheet sits in a bowl-like depression surrounded by mountains that restrict glacial outflow to the sea.

Wrong statements

• AIT claims glaciologist Lonnie Thompson's reconstruction of climate history proves the Medieval Warm Period was “tiny” compared to the warming observed in recent decades. It doesn't. Four of Thompson's six ice cores indicate the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as or warmer than any recent decade.

• It claims the rate of global warming is accelerating, when it has been remarkably constant for the past 30 years—roughly 0.17°C/decade.

• It attributes Europe's killer heat wave of 2003 to global warming; it was actually due to an atmospheric circulation anomaly.

• It claims that 2004 set an all-time record for the number of tornadoes in the United States. Tornado frequency has not increased; rather, the detection of smaller tornadoes has increased. If we consider the tornadoes that have been detectable for many decades (F-3 or greater), there is actually a downward trend since 1950.

• It blames global warming for a “mass extinction crisis” that is not, in fact, occurring



Like I've just said above, the IPCC had to change it's scientific report because of political pressure

You must be reading from the script at realclimate.org again. How de we know CGMs are false? They all produce different answers,ergo, GIGO. Gates et al. estimate, 0.2/ Hummel 1.2 / Somerville and Remer 0.48 / Stouffer et al. 4.0 / Rind et al. 4.8, etc,etc.

Within these fundamentally flawed CGMs, the behaviour of turbulent fluids or the processes that occur within clouds, our knowledge of the physics is incomplete and therefore requires the extensive use of parameterisation. Get it? The physics of unresolved phenomena such as clouds is not understood to the extent needed, ergo, parameterisation. The facts are the U.N. CGMs are so flawed they cannot accurately retrodict the past climate.The UN`s CGMs require more than a million lines of code and all are deterministic. But, the output of CGM`s are called "scenarios" and not predictions .

-The state-of-the-art GFDL climate model conclusively shows that the Medieval Warm Period was physically impossible

-The models predict the recent warming due to greenhouse gases should occur equally during the day and night. Observations show nearly all the warming is occurring at night, so the observations falsify the models. The climate models get a warming which when plotted versus time and compared to observations appear to parallel each other, but this parallelism is only superficial and does not confirm the models.

-The models predict that cloud cover should be decreasing, and, in fact, such a decrease is crucial to amplify the greenhouse effect so it becomes the "enhanced" greenhouse effect. All measurements show cloud cover is increasing. And, for any of the models to have a chance at explaining the diurnal temperature variations, they must invoke increases in cloud cover such that they decrease the predicted global warming by a factor of 5 to 6 The measurements again invalidate the climate models.

-The models attribute the cooling from about 1940 to 1970 to sulfate aerosols. The quantity of aerosols they used are not based upon measurements, but are themselves model results. One prediction of this model is a maximum amount of aerosols in central Europe. Observations of atmospheric transmission in Davos Switzerland, right in the middle of the region where the model maximum in sulfates presumably existed, show no change in atmospheric transmission, contrary to the IPCC predictions. Observations in Belgium, Ireland, and other locations also falsify the IPCC modeled amounts of sulfate aerosols.

-The models predict a warming of about 0.35 C per decade in the mid-troposphere. Two satellites (MSU and TOVS) and radiosondes show a cooling, thus falsifying the IPCC models

-The models predict a 0.50 cm/yr rise in sea level. The TOPEX/POSEIDEN observations show a 0.06 cm/yr rise, thus falsifying the IPCC models.

We conclude you have a faith and belief, and not a scientific certainty. In essence you admit the science is flawed and in error yet maintain your faith that we should slice 1-5% off our GDP and spend trillions with the end result being next to nothing.

You remind one of Lowell Ponte,
“This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”

And going further back, snake oil salesmen with the cure for everything. If only we`d buy your junkscience. 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

Newflash sport, you lied in your post to make it seem as if the data was recent. You haven't got away with this one. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of what you wrote- it's pointless. Although I did read Rogers' post and it seems you've misused that Chirac quote again. And you've misspelled The Hague. Naughty boy...

Not only did the study not dispute that climate change is possible but- you failed to mention- it was carried out 15 years ago. You lied. It's a simple as that.

I lied, yeahhh :screwy

Do I have to repost all the former IPCC scientists and other scientists who now doubt agw ? I`ll dig it up later but here`s a few:

-Freeman Dyson

-Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006.

-Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic.

-Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,”

-Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.”

-Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic.

-Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific...As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles"

-Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster...I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,”

[trish]

Newton was totally flawed in describing the laws of gravity... Of course Newton's description is flawed you idiot; every hear of General Relativity. No science is complete, and no science is perfect. There is always more to be said, observed, deduced and refined. Though there is some pseudo-science that is beyond redemption, namely, the theory that the current climiate change is due to variation in the solar energy flux. Such swell in flux would have been detected by the Solar Heliospheric Observatory which constantly monitors the Sun from the Lagrange point between the Earth and the Sun. The data from SOHO has never detected a swell of such duration or magnitude that could account for the global climate change.

I have to wonder what kind of paleoclimatologist is "surprised" by what he finds when sets about "further examining the evidence." I would have expected a paleoclimatologist to be already up on the evidence. In any case Dr. Clark support of a hypothesis is not by itself evidence for or againt that hypothesis. Only his argument and the observations he basis it on can be counted as evidence. A list of people who agree with you is not an argument...especially when the list is a paltry few dozen compared with the thousands of experts and climatologists who find that current climate change is anthropogenic.

[yosi]

every hear of General Relativity. No science is complete, and no science is perfect.

this is true , there have been many cases of "scientific facts" that were proven later wrong,once it was a proven fact that earth is flat , there are some cases in science in which earth is still flat................. 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

Newton was totally flawed...


Of course Newton's description is flawed you idiot; every hear of General Relativity. No science is complete, and no science is perfect. There is always more to be said, observed, deduced and refined. Though there is some pseudo-science that is beyond redemption, namely, the theory that the current climiate change is due to variation in the solar energy flux. Such swell in flux would have been detected by the Solar Heliospheric Observatory which constantly monitors the Sun from the Lagrange point between the Earth and the Sun. The data from SOHO has never detected a swell of such duration or magnitude that could account for the global climate...

Uh yeahh, I said specifically, "Newton was totally flawed..." Newton's general universal gravitation was considered proved correct whereas the U.N.`s IPCC from the start has utilized generally flawed CGMs and proxy ice core data that is underestimated by at least 55ppm.

And we`ve been through sunspot cycles before. It`s possible to compare sun activity of today with it`s own history using C-14 stored in tree rings going back almost 11,400 years, so that the whole length of time since the last ice age could be covered.

So you can stick to your "the beginning of the end of the Earth begins in less than 10 years" dogma. I`ll still be here in less than a decade to laugh my ass off at all the kooks and cranks the same way we laughed at all you Lowell Pontes` a few decades earlier. 8)

[LG]

Newflash sport, you lied in your post to make it seem as if the data was recent. You haven't got away with this one. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of what you wrote- it's pointless. Although I did read Rogers' post and it seems you've misused that Chirac quote again. And you've misspelled The Hague. Naughty boy...

Not only did the study not dispute that climate change is possible but- you failed to mention- it was carried out 15 years ago. You lied. It's a simple as that.

I lied, yeahhh :screwy

Do I have to repost all the former IPCC scientists and other scientists who now doubt agw ? I`ll dig it up later but here`s a few:

-Freeman Dyson

-Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006.

-Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic.

-Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,”

-Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.”

-Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic.

-Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific...As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles"

-Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster...I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,”

Wrong answer, WMC, and that's strike 2. In fact that's not even an answer, merely deflection, much of which we've heard before, some of which is full of shit.

Now explain: why did you try and pass off a 15 year old poll as something that was produced just recently?

We're still waiting...

[trish]

So you can stick to your "the beginning of the end of the Earth begins in less than 10 years" dogma. I`ll still be here in less than a decade to laugh my ass off at all the kooks and cranks the same way we laughed at all you Lowell Pontes` a few decades earlier. i don't doubt you'll be laughing your ass off....and once again i'll have to pick it up and hand it to you. but really, do you get yourself off everyday by misstating people's assertions and then knocking down the misstatment??? no one here is claiming you won't be around in ten years to annoy us all. some ARE claiming that if we don't curb our CO2 emissions sufficiently within ten year, it will be too late to avoid further climate change and some of its more significant and deleterious effects: e.g. geographical redistribution of plants, animals and diseases; ocean rise; crop failures; more intense weather systems etc. i know, you'll be laughing about it all as you seach under the furniture for your ass.

[White_Male_Canada]

So you can stick to your "the beginning of the end of the Earth begins in less than 10 years" dogma. I`ll still be here in less than a decade to laugh my ass off at all the kooks and cranks the same way we laughed at all you Lowell Pontes` a few decades earlier. i don't doubt you'll be laughing your ass off....and once again i'll have to pick it up and hand it to you. but really, do you get yourself off everyday by misstating people's assertions and then knocking down the misstatment??? no one here is claiming you won't be around in ten years to annoy us all. some ARE claiming that if we don't curb our CO2 emissions sufficiently within ten year, it will be too late to avoid further climate change and some of its more significant and deleterious effects: e.g. geographical redistribution of plants, animals and diseases; ocean rise; crop failures; more intense weather systems etc. i know, you'll be laughing about it all as you seach under the furniture for your ass.

Trish, you`re an arrogant irrational fear monger:

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=20797

[trish]

oh...ouch! :roll:

[CockStroker]

Trollishous. B-)

[Rogers]

I'd normally apologize for my delay in replying, but I'm not going to do so for you, _Canada. Anyhoo, let's see if you can bore and lie to me further, shall we?



All science is flawed, fool

So Flemming discovering lysozyme was flawed, he was wrong. Newton was totally flawed in describing the laws of gravity, etc,etc.
Aah, but Newton was flawed, wasn't he? And so was Darwin, Freud, Hawking, etc., etc.. And making a scientific discovery after years of trial and error is hardly perfect, is it now? The fundamental essence of science is the repeated testing and improvement of hypotheses. Repeated testing is necessary because flaws are inherent in the system, because humans are flawed, fool!

If trish did miss your inference, I can't say I'm surprised. Your continued use of bold-type becomes offensive after a while. It's like you're shouting, and things get lost in translation when someone is shouting. What's wrong with you, dude?


Algore`s a propagandist:

Algore`s book, An Inconvenient Truth is rife with either one sided, misleading,speculative,exaggerated or just plain wrong statements:

Misleading statements
• It blames global warming for a “mass extinction crisis” that is not, in fact, occurring
That phrase equally applies to you, _Canada. ROTFLMAO.
There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

WHAT A DUMBASS!!!


You remind one of Lowell Ponte,
“This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”
Lowell Ponte is a radio talk show host, not a scientist, and no scientist said an ice age was imminent in the 1970's, i.e. it's another straw man.
The book ("The Cooling" by Lowell Ponte) is "popular science": as it says (remarkably) in the preface by Reid Bryson: "...There are very few pages that, as a scientist, I could accept without questions of accuracy, of precision, or of balance..." and any claim to utility it may have would have to come from bringing interesting ideas to the general public (of the time).
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ponte.html

Connolley's website has some interesting stuff on climate change if you're interested, LG and trish?
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/

Btw, straw man _Canada, have you got your brain from the Wizard yet? It would make debating with you far less boring.

That makes it check-mate for the fifth time now, _Canada. Like I said, you're so easy! How does it feel to be so easy, _Canada? Does it make you feel like a pantywaist? ROTFLMAO!!!

[guyone]

What about the lag of this thread?

[Rogers]

What about the lag of this thread?
It's roughly 4.5 days, guyone. Does that answer your question? Surely you're funnier than that, guy? Then again, given your summer "joke", maybe not?

[guyone]

What 'summer' joke?

[White_Male_Canada]

If trish did miss your inference, I can't say I'm surprised. Your continued use of bold-type becomes offensive after a while. It's like you're shouting, and things get lost in translation when someone is shouting. What's wrong with you, dude?

Flemming and Newton were generally correct and no amount of babbling nonsense can make it not so.

Secondly, the U.N. and it`s IPCC uses flawed science and claims there is no more debate because the science must be flawless it`s over, it`s proven beyond a shadow of a doubt so we must spend Trillions and slice 2-5% of GDP from the economy. Why debate? The science is in, it`s perfect, there`s a consensus.

You leftists can argue that irrationality all you like, just makes us laugh even harder ! Fuck your stupid :lol: All science is flawed expect your religious belief in the IPCC which is not open to debate, only action to alleviate the problem proven by fundamentally flawed science from the very beginning.

Algore`s a propagandist:

Algore`s book, An Inconvenient Truth is rife with either one sided, misleading,speculative,exaggerated or just plain wrong statements:

Misleading statements
• It blames global warming for a “mass extinction crisis” that is not, in fact, occurring


That phrase equally applies to you, _Canada. ROTFLMAO.

Prove algore`s misleading,speculative and exaggerated statements are not thus and true.



There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

Fuck, you`re even dumber than I could ever imagine.

Seven new species found in Bolivia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3016876.stm

New frog species found in Thailand
http://fe3.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070523/sc_afp/thailandbiologyenvironmentfrog

52 New Species Found in Indonesian Waters
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=10921705836

BEIJING, Nov. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- 178 new species of fish
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-11/25/content_2259325.htm

Scientists have found more than 700 new species of marine creatures in seas once thought too hostile to sustain such rich biodiversity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6661987.stm




Lowell Ponte is a radio talk show host, not a scientist, and no scientist said an ice age was imminent in the 1970's.

Never said he was as much a scientist as you are. Here junior, the 1975 NRC/NAS report,"...there seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate...although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years".
That came with caveats that were ignored then as now, as the hysterics raged in Newsweek, PopularScience etc.


You`ve become a total bore.

[Rogers]

Flemming and Newton were generally correct and no amount of babbling nonsense can make it not so.
Generally correct = flawed = _Canada is talking through his ass again.


Secondly, the U.N. and it`s IPCC uses flawed science and claims there is no more debate because the science must be flawless it`s over, it`s proven beyond a shadow of a doubt so we must spend Trillions and slice 2-5% of GDP from the economy. Why debate? The science is in, it`s perfect, there`s a consensus.
Again with the conspiracy theories. :screwy Even Commander Chimpy looks to have thrown in the towel on global warming, so just give it up, dude.


You leftists can argue that irrationality all you like, just makes us laugh even harder ! Fuck your stupid :lol: All science is flawed expect your religious belief in the IPCC which is not open to debate, only action to alleviate the problem proven by fundamentally flawed science from the very beginning.
What’s with the us? Talk about an army of one. No, the truth is that people are laughing at you, even your signature proves how you’ve well and truly lost it! :screwy



There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html
Fuck, you`re even dumber than I could ever imagine.

Seven new species found in Bolivia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3016876.stm

New frog species found in Thailand
http://fe3.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070523/sc_afp/thailandbiologyenvironmentfrog

52 New Species Found in Indonesian Waters
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=10921705836

BEIJING, Nov. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- 178 new species of fish
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-11/25/content_2259325.htm

Scientists have found more than 700 new species of marine creatures in seas once thought too hostile to sustain such rich biodiversity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6661987.stm[/b]
So now you're a professional biologist as well as a climate scientist. ROTFLMAO!!! Oh look, we've found another species, therefore there is no extinction crisis. Oooh, the logic. ROTFLMAO!!! That's another straw man, dumbass. Just because we’ve recently found more species does not mean many more are going extinct. Newsflash, we've always been finding new species.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,,1993621,00.html
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/endangered/extinct.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=January&x=20070122112518mlenuhret0.4942743
http://web.archive.org/web/20050310090519/www.iucn.org/redlist/2000/news.html
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html

You're continued overly simplistic knowledge of, and general attitude towards the complexity of science, means that you will always lose the debate. And that is why you are a laughing stock. At first I thought you may be scientist, because you seemed to know too much, too well, to be just a layman, but I was clearly wrong. If you are a scientist, then you aren't a very good one. Really, ranting about AGW being all a conspiracy theory on the internet, HOW FUCKING SAD IS THAT!!! I actually feel quite sorry for you now, but that's the kind of person I am. 8)

[insert_namehere]

Errr... Rogers... you mean all those species didn't come into being with the advent of global warming?

Darn... I was hoping 2 more mean degrees globally and we'd have a species of albino atomic supergorillas.

[Rogers]

What 'summer' joke?
Now you are making me laugh, guyone. Just a little.

Man it's sooo hot. Maybe there's something to this global warming...MAYBE IT'S CALLED SUMMER!
See page 3 of this thread if you've forgotten.

[Rogers]

Errr... Rogers... you mean all those species didn't come into being with the advent of global warming?

Darn... I was hoping 2 more mean degrees globally and we'd have a species of albino atomic supergorillas.
I'm afraid not, insert_namehere, there are still many undiscovered species to find, simply because we've not looked hard enough for them. Rapid changes in an environment only stresses a species, making it far more likely to got extinct.

When it comes to science, insert_namehere, I wouldn't believe a word _Canada says. He flatters to deceive.

[White_Male_Canada]

There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html


Fuck, you`re even dumber than I could ever imagine.

Seven new species found in Bolivia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3016876.stm

New frog species found in Thailand
http://fe3.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070523/sc_afp/thailandbiologyenvironmentfrog



So now you're a professional biologist as well as a climate scientist. ROTFLMAO!!! Oh look, we've found another species, therefore there is no extinction crisis. Oooh, the logic. ROTFLMAO!!! That's another straw man, dumbass. Just because we’ve recently found more species does not mean many more are going extinct.

Oh really now? So all those links of yours will point to the IPCC`s man-made CO2 as the cause ? Because the IPCC and their fear-mongers in the press are stating species extinction. Do all those links of yours state man-made CO2 caused complete extinctions ?


You leftists can argue that irrationality all you like, just makes us laugh even harder ! Fuck your stupid :lol: All science is flawed expect your religious belief in the IPCC which is not open to debate, only action to alleviate the problem proven by fundamentally flawed science from the very beginning.

Wow, what an unbelievably dull intellect you possess. You argue all science is flawed except of course the U.N.`s IPCCs`. Even cazy Al Gore said so, " the debate in the scientific community is over.” Get it , OVER, DONE !

Perfect science with no flaws, right from the start! :lol:

[trish]

Flemming and Newton were generally correct and no amount of babbling nonsense can make it not so.
That depends on how you’re interpreting the phrase “generally correct.” For example, the FORCE of gravity is a primitive concept of Newton’s theory. His entire account of celestial mechanic conceptually require his second law of motion together with the notion of a gravitational force which makes itself felt instantaneously and at a distance. Current theories of gravity are entirely different. They dispense with the notion of force. Instead, follow the first law (the law of inertial) test bodies trace out space-time geodesics. The geometry of space-time is locally Lorenz and consequently the effects of gravity are now understood to propagate at finite speeds, and are not felt everywhere instaneously.

Now just because Newton’s theory is SERIOUSLY flawed and GENERALLY and CONCEPTUALLY incorrect, it is the limiting case of Einstein’s general relativity and consequently is a useful predictive tool, depending on your purposes. If you’re interest in accurate GPS devices, you got to use general relativity. If you’re interested in getting a probe to Mar and you’re allow to make minor course corrections (via robotic firing of retro-rockets) Newton’s theory will suffice. Indeed, when the probe rendezvous with its target, one might say the predictions were flawless (because they were within the acceptable bounds of error for the mission)

You can simply say that calculations based on flawed concepts lead to incorrect predictions. At the time of Copernicus, Ptolemaic theory was in fact more accurate then calculations based on Copernican ideas. It’s important one knows how the theory is flawed and the extent of the range of its application.

Planetary atmospheres and climates is a young science and no scientist (even those associated with the IPCC) claims our understanding is perfect is flawless. However, one may still be confident that certain future measurements will be within prescribed bounds of the current theory’s predictions. If the IPCC report claims its science is flawless, it is not in former, but rather in the latter sense.

Seven new species found in Bolivia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3016876.stm

New frog species found in Thailand
http://fe3.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070523/sc_afp/thailandbiologyenvironmentfrog

52 New Species Found in Indonesian Waters
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=10921705836

BEIJING, Nov. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- 178 new species of fish
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-11/25/content_2259325.htm

Scientists have found more than 700 new species of marine creatures in seas once thought too hostile to sustain such rich biodiversity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6661987.stm



Do you really take this as evidence that the diversity of Earth’s biota is increasing? Wow, evolution is taking place right now at a breakneck pace!!! Thanks to our curiosity and technology, we are discovering old species we never knew before. We are also losing species to extinction at a rate unprecedented in recent geologic history. I do think you’re confusing “rate of discovery” with “rate in” and totally ignoring “rate out.” But it’s an understandable mistake because you’re dumber than even you can imagine.

[Rogers]

There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html
Fuck, you`re even dumber than I could ever imagine.

Seven new species found in Bolivia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3016876.stm

New frog species found in Thailand
http://fe3.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070523/sc_afp/thailandbiologyenvironmentfrog


So now you're a professional biologist as well as a climate scientist. ROTFLMAO!!! Oh look, we've found another species, therefore there is no extinction crisis. Oooh, the logic. ROTFLMAO!!! That's another straw man, dumbass. Just because we’ve recently found more species does not mean many more are going extinct.
Oh really now? So all those links of yours will point to the IPCC`s man-made CO2 as the cause ? Because the IPCC and their fear-mongers in the press are stating species extinction. Do all those links of yours state man-made CO2 caused complete extinctions ?
If you'd actually read the first link I supplied on the current extinction crisis, _Canada, you would have realized that no scientist is saying that species are currently going extinct because of climate change. Maybe Al Gore is saying that, but he's not a scientist. However, you did say,

...a “mass extinction crisis” that is not, in fact, occurring

So I guess I'll have to say it again,
WHAT A DUMBASS!!!

That's check-mate six times now, _Canada. I have kicked your pathetic pantywaisted ass all through this thread now. If it was a boxing match, they would have called an end to it long ago.

So please, please, pretty please, please fucking please, go see the Wizard of Oz and get a brain, straw man _Canada.

[White_Male_Canada]

There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

Fuck, you`re even dumber than I could ever imagine.

Seven new species found in Bolivia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3016876.stm

New frog species found in Thailand
http://fe3.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070523/sc_afp/thailandbiologyenvironmentfrog


So now you're a professional biologist as well as a climate scientist. ROTFLMAO!!! Oh look, we've found another species, therefore there is no extinction crisis. Oooh, the logic. ROTFLMAO!!! That's another straw man, dumbass. Just because we’ve recently found more species does not mean many more are going extinct.

Oh really now? So all those links of yours will point to the IPCC`s man-made CO2 as the cause ? Because the IPCC and their fear-mongers in the press are stating species extinction. Do all those links of yours state man-made CO2 caused complete extinctions ?




If you'd actually read the first link I supplied on the current extinction crisis, _Canada, you would have realized that no scientist is saying that species are currently going extinct because of climate change. Maybe Al Gore is saying that, but he's not a scientist. However, you did say,
...a “mass extinction crisis” that is not, in fact, occurring

Wow, you`ve lost all ability to reason the basics. Are you for real or just quinn the villageidiot in disguise. The "mass extinction crisis" is a direct quote from algore`s book, `An Inconvenient Truth `.You know that book, the man is destroying the planet and killing all the animals book?
Not to mention in the same book the spurious claim that polar bears in Canada, “have been drowning in significant numbers,” . I live here, the Province of Nunavut keeps close tabs on the bears. Guess what? There so many they`re thinking of a cull.


That's check-mate six times now, _Canada. I have kicked your pathetic pantywaisted ass all through this thread now. If it was a boxing match, they would have called an end to it long ago.

You`ve lost touch with reality as most leftists are prone to do, you`re like a circuit with no ground. This is your topic, algore and his co2, yet you post irrelevant nonsense about species going extinct not due to man-made co2 but other causes in sheer desperation.

You reek of desperation so badly, it stinks. As usual, a pathetic left-wing loser who`s ideology, an ideology based on faith not science, has been crushed under the weight of evidence.

[trish]

No IPCC scientist is claiming extinctions are due to CO2 emissions. But bio-diversity is decreasing. Let's try this again. You're confusing "rate of discovery of previously unknown species" with the "rate of newly minted species" and completely ignoring "rate of extinction."

[guyone]

What about the rate of newly minted coins from the Franklin Mint?

[trish]

as irrelevant to the rate of change in bio-diversity as as the rate of discovery of previously unknown species.

[White_Male_Canada]

No IPCC scientist is claiming extinctions are due to CO2 emissions. But bio-diversity is decreasing. Let's try this again. You're confusing "rate of discovery of previously unknown species" with the "rate of newly minted species" and completely ignoring "rate of extinction."

Come on Trish, better re-read your bible girl, you`re faith is being tested. 8)

" The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances...20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction "

IPCC 4th Assessment Report

[White_Male_Canada]

What about the rate of newly minted coins from the Franklin Mint?

Psst~ scuttlebutt is Trish collects the plates, shhh pass it on :wink:

[Rogers]

...a “mass extinction crisis” that is not, in fact, occurring


Wow, you`ve lost all ability to reason the basics. Are you for real or just quinn the villageidiot in disguise. The "mass extinction crisis" is a direct quote from algore`s book, `An Inconvenient Truth `.You know that book, the man is destroying the planet and killing all the animals book?
Not to mention in the same book the spurious claim that polar bears in Canada, “have been drowning in significant numbers,” . I live here, the Province of Nunavut keeps close tabs on the bears. Guess what? There so many they`re thinking of a cull.
Wow, keeping digging moron. If you only get your scientific knowledge from popular science books by the likes of Al Gore and Lowell Ponte, then I'm not surprised you know nothing about science. The "mass extinction crisis" is not just a direct quote from Al Gore's book. If you don't believe me, do an internet search for the "Sixth Extinction". Biologists have been banging on about it for decades now, global warming will make it far worse. I don't know, or care, what Al Gore says about it, but it is happening, and he didn't invent the term.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/sixthextinction.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4797

Wow, relying on Al Gore and Lowell Ponte for your scientific knowledge. I'm impressed. Man, I was definitely wrong about you being a scientist. You just lift the crap you type from right-wing conspiracy web-sites don't you? Btw, have you seen my new signature, it's you to a fucking T. ROTFLMAO!!! 8)

[Rogers]

" The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances...20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction "

IPCC 4th Assessment Report
For there is little doubt that humans are the direct cause of ecosystem stress and species destruction in the modern world through such activities as:
transformation of the landscape
overexploitation of species
pollution
the introduction of alien species
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

Rapid climate change acts as a further cause of ecosystem stress, hence the quote from the IPCC. 8)

[Rogers]

:lol: 8)

[trish]

The gist of the IPCC position is that climate change can and will exasperate a already existing trend.

i guessing the plate deflection means you gave up trying to make real points.

[White_Male_Canada]

Glutton for punishment I see.


The "mass extinction crisis" is not just a direct quote from Al Gore's book….

algore- An Inconvenient Truth,

"In fact, we are facing what biologists are beginning to describe as a mass extinction crisis, with a rate of extinction now 1,000 times higher than the normal background rate." (p. 163)


Why do I even bother with clowns who do not even know what they speak of.
Now, to continue the theme:


I don't know, or care, what Al Gore says about it, but it is happening, and he didn't invent the term…Maybe Al Gore is saying that, but he's not a scientist...Al Gore is right.

Self-explanatory.


"...20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction "


Rapid climate change acts as a further cause of ecosystem stress, hence the quote from the IPCC.

Known species extinctions in the last several centuries total about 1,000, with very few if any solely attributed to man-made climate change. In desperation you attempt to lump other causes into the eqaution when this topic is about algore and co2.

You`re true colors are beginning to show VillageIdiot. 8)

[trish]

Check out

Nature/Vol 447/31 May 20007
Brief Communications Arising
Global warming and amphibian losses arsising from:
By Pounds et al.

The sense of the communication is that current data suggests warming trends in the American tropics favor the propagation of the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and other pathogens deleterious to the health and reproduction of amphibians. We know that amphibians have been losing ground in America for some time, partly because of encroachment of habitat, and partly because of farm runoff toxic to amphibians. The additional downward push by climate change doesn’t constitute the primary cause nor the initial cause of their decline, but it may be a contributory cause.

[Quinn]

...a “mass extinction crisis” that is not, in fact, occurring


Wow, you`ve lost all ability to reason the basics. Are you for real or just quinn the villageidiot in disguise. The "mass extinction crisis" is a direct quote from algore`s book, `An Inconvenient Truth `.You know that book, the man is destroying the planet and killing all the animals book?
Not to mention in the same book the spurious claim that polar bears in Canada, “have been drowning in significant numbers,” . I live here, the Province of Nunavut keeps close tabs on the bears. Guess what? There so many they`re thinking of a cull.
Wow, keeping digging moron. If you only get your scientific knowledge from popular science books by the likes of Al Gore and Lowell Ponte, then I'm not surprised you know nothing about science. The "mass extinction crisis" is not just a direct quote from Al Gore's book. If you don't believe me, do an internet search for the "Sixth Extinction". Biologists have been banging on about it for decades now, global warming will make it far worse. I don't know, or care, what Al Gore says about it, but it is happening, and he didn't invent the term.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/sixthextinction.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4797

Wow, relying on Al Gore and Lowell Ponte for your scientific knowledge. I'm impressed. Man, I was definitely wrong about you being a scientist. You just lift the crap you type from right-wing conspiracy web-sites don't you? Btw, have you seen my new signature, it's you to a fucking T. ROTFLMAO!!! 8)

ROTFLMAO…………..Awwwwww, don’t be upset White_Closet_Case..... Just because your afactual ramblings have been obliterated during each of our previous debates is no reason to whine like a little sissy. Look, I know it sucks that you’ve been left without an ounce of credibility or respect – and are routinely cited as a laughable cautionary tale in the general forum (by many different posters) – but don’t worry. After all, being the second most reviled poster in HA history isn’t so bad. You can rest easy in the knowledge that, during HA’s fairly lengthy history, at least one other poster was regarded as a bigger fool than you by the forum at large.

Until then, stay irrelevant – and don’t worry. In a few weeks I’ll have some free time on my hands, at which point I’ll probably be bored enough to give you another metaphorical bitch slapping:

http://White_Closet_Case.justgotowned.com/

-Quinn

[LG]

There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html
Fuck, you`re even dumber than I could ever imagine.

Seven new species found in Bolivia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3016876.stm

New frog species found in Thailand
http://fe3.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070523/sc_afp/thailandbiologyenvironmentfrog

52 New Species Found in Indonesian Waters
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=10921705836

BEIJING, Nov. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- 178 new species of fish
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-11/25/content_2259325.htm

Scientists have found more than 700 new species of marine creatures in seas once thought too hostile to sustain such rich biodiversity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6661987.stm[/b]
So now you're a professional biologist as well as a climate scientist. ROTFLMAO!!! Oh look, we've found another species, therefore there is no extinction crisis. Oooh, the logic. ROTFLMAO!!! That's another straw man, dumbass. Just because we’ve recently found more species does not mean many more are going extinct. Newsflash, we've always been finding new species.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,,1993621,00.html
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/endangered/extinct.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=January&x=20070122112518mlenuhret0.4942743
http://web.archive.org/web/20050310090519/www.iucn.org/redlist/2000/news.html
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html


I've been watching this argument from a distance over the last few days because I don't want to get sucked in again. But I'm sorry, WMC, because you're heading into a blind alley here, and I feel it is my duty to tell you that you're onto a pile of crap. The discovery of a new species means nothing. The fact is that we've barely seen the tip of the iceberg and there are myriad new species out there to uncover and we will keep on discovering them as long as people look for them. Perhaps if we keep the earth's climate a little stable they won't face extinction before we have a chance to discover them.

But as a scientific argument against the global warming consensus your point on the discovery of new species sucks ass.

[White_Male_Canada]

...a “mass extinction crisis” that is not, in fact, occurring


Wow, you`ve lost all ability to reason the basics. Are you for real or just quinn the villageidiot in disguise. The "mass extinction crisis" is a direct quote from algore`s book, `An Inconvenient Truth `.You know that book, the man is destroying the planet and killing all the animals book?
Not to mention in the same book the spurious claim that polar bears in Canada, “have been drowning in significant numbers,” . I live here, the Province of Nunavut keeps close tabs on the bears. Guess what? There so many they`re thinking of a cull.
Wow, keeping digging moron. If you only get your scientific knowledge from popular science books by the likes of Al Gore and Lowell Ponte, then I'm not surprised you know nothing about science. The "mass extinction crisis" is not just a direct quote from Al Gore's book. If you don't believe me, do an internet search for the "Sixth Extinction". Biologists have been banging on about it for decades now, global warming will make it far worse. I don't know, or care, what Al Gore says about it, but it is happening, and he didn't invent the term.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/sixthextinction.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4797

Wow, relying on Al Gore and Lowell Ponte for your scientific knowledge. I'm impressed. Man, I was definitely wrong about you being a scientist. You just lift the crap you type from right-wing conspiracy web-sites don't you? Btw, have you seen my new signature, it's you to a fucking T. ROTFLMAO!!! 8)

In a few weeks I’ll have some free time on my hands, at which point I’ll probably be bored enough to give you another metaphorical bitch slapping:[/b]




Not only can you and your twin idiot not read, you both cannot comprehend:

algore- An Inconvenient Truth,

"In fact, we are facing what biologists are beginning to describe as a mass extinction crisis, with a rate of extinction now 1,000 times higher than the normal background rate." (p. 163)


This from the buffoon who hasn`t a clue as to basic Constitutional law !? :lol:

I`ll keep the VillageIdiot Pwned Page warmed up for you goofball. 8)

[trish]

You’re actually proud of that signature, WMC? Use a little logic, wimpy. If one believes in an inconsistency, then one is lead to believe everything (since an inconsistency materially implies every proposition). Propositions that are merely false are entirely a different story since they will not generally entail every proposition. Therefore, when people abandon the truth (a person such as yourself), they will believe some false things (like you), but generally not anything and everything (as neither do you). Here’s a question for you logicians out there. Is WMC’s signature merely false, or is it inconsistent?

[trish]

“St. Paul, Minn. — The 1200 scientists and others at the international meeting sponsored by the government of France issued a statement at the end of the 5-day-long event. It said in part, "Biodiversity is being irreversibly destroyed by human activities at an unprecedented rate. . . (demanding) urgent and significant action."
New plant and animal species are emerging, University of Minnesota ecology professor David Tilman says, but not nearly fast enough to make up for the toll caused by human activity.
"That's sort of a 1 million to 4 million year process, and yet we are causing species to be lost at rates of 100 to 1000 times faster," he says.
Tilman says the rate of extinction is approaching what scientists assume happened 65 million years ago. ”


rest of this story at:

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/01/31_olsond_biodiversity/

[North_of_60]

My turn... 8)

I can't believe how you love the spanking, White Boy.

The greatest difference between the present mass extinction and those of the past is that today's extinctions are entirely due to the activities of a single species--Homo sapiens. Human activities, including the clearing of forests, the spread of agriculture, the introduction of animals into new environments, and the pollution of air, water, and soil, account for almost all of the extinctions of the last several thousand years. As the human population grows and human activities increase, the problem will become more serious. More people require more food and more space to live, creating more waste, and yes, more plant and animal exinction.

Global Warming Threatens Extinction of One Million Species
- Nature- 2004

UNITED NATIONS: HUMANS CAUSING GREATEST MASS EXTINCTION IN 65 MILLION YEARS (Reuters-- 2006) http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1596740.htm

American Museum of Natural History Press Release on Current Mass Extinction
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/amnh.html

Fastest Mass Extinction in Earth's History (Worldwatch Report)
http://web.archive.org/web/20011222210519/www.enn.com/enn-features-archive/1998/09/091698/fea0916_23526.asp

SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD FACES MASS EXTINCTION (CNN-- 2002)
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/23/green.century.mass.extinction/index.html

Earth Faces Sixth Mass Extinction (New Scientist-- 2004)
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4797??

16,119 Threatened Species-- 40% of Evaluated Species Are Threatened-2006 Red List (IUCN-- 2006)
http://www.iucn.org/en/news/archive/2006/05/02_pr_red_list_en.htm

Global Warming Threatens Extinction of One Million Species (Nature-- 2004) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3375447.stm

Huge Extinction Risks of Global Warming Confirmed (Reuters-- 2006) http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-04-10T234508Z_01_L10748935_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-SPECIES.xml

By 2050 Global Warming Will Doom A Million Species (National Geographic-- 2004)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html

BRITISH STUDY CONFIRMS WORLDWIDE MASS EXTINCTION (Science-- 2004) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1173114,00.html

Two Thirds of World's Species May Be Threatened (EurekAlert/AAAS-- 2005)

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/aaft-lss111405.php

[White_Male_Canada]

My turn... 8)

I can't believe how you love the spanking, White Boy.

The greatest difference between the present mass extinction and those of the past is that today's extinctions are entirely due to the activities of a single species--Homo sapiens. Human activities, including the clearing of forests, the spread of agriculture, the introduction of animals into new environments, and the pollution of air, water, and soil,

You left-wing kooks do thing constantly. When at a loss for rational repsonses to the "man-made CO2 is causing mass-extinction" you toss in deforestation,land use,etc etc in a weak attempt to bolster your flacid argument.

Get that junk outta here ! 8)

[trish]

You left-wing kooks do thing constantly.
That’s interesting. What does it mean?

When at a loss for rational repsonses to the "man-made CO2 is causing mass-extinction" you toss in deforestation,land use,etc etc…
Do you mean responses to the straw dog argument that “man-made CO2 is causing mass-extinction,” or do mean responses to your position (I say position instead of argument because you made none yet) against the straw dog position that “man-made CO2 is causing mass-extinction?” You seem upset that no one here is backing that straw dog. No one here is claiming that CO2 emissions alone are causing mass extinctions. Awww…too bad. Now let’s see, I’ll try to paraphrase your position. You tell me if I got it right:

Previously unidentified species are being discovered almost every week.
Therefore there are no mass extinctions.

Talk about a short flaccid noodle!!! You certainly got one there.

[insert_namehere]

You left-wing kooks do thing constantly. When at a loss for rational repsonses to the "man-made CO2 is causing mass-extinction" you toss in deforestation,land use,etc etc in a weak attempt to bolster your flacid argument.

Get that junk outta here ! 8)

You know, I was waiting for this turn in the discussion.

As I've suspected, winning arguments is more important than whether or not the level of waste, industrialization, crappy husbandry and any other type of human impact on the environment is tipping the scales away from habitability for any species that cannot alter it's environment.

Fine, you know what? When it comes to the environment, I'm a classic libtard. As such, I'm more than willing to accept your premise that CO2 is being released naturally at higher rates than anything humanity is doing. Happy now?

You win - I don't friggin' care.

Let's just keep hopping down the path we're going. Hey, we can filter our water, we can condition our air. Fuck the shifts in thermal and acid levels in fresh water streams, ponds and rivers in the U.S. Frogs? Who fucking needs 'em? If they can't adapt, they deserve to die, right? The same goes for any other creature that can't tolerate non-replenishing farming techniques, toxic leeching, forest duff destruction, wild and forest fires easily set up to happen due to bad forest and land husbandry, wastelands left over by strip-mining and aggressive, high impact resource drilling.

Oceans? Big vast deposits of non-potable water. Let's dump more heavy metals, toxins, oil spills and any other crap we can think of in there. Have you ever seen a flounder? They're uglier than shit - kill 'em off. We can farm salmon, trout, cows, pigs and chickens. Family farms are economically unsound. Agribusiness is the way to go. Figure vegetables, grains and fruit by the frozen kiloton. The planet will probably survive OUR lifetimes, along with our kids. Grandchildren? Hey, who gives a shit.. we don't know 'em and if they all kick off in a depleted world, who cares? We'll have been dead for a long time anyway.

The important thing, is winning this trivial argument. Congrats, your priorities are all in line.

[White_Male_Canada]

You left-wing kooks do thing constantly.


That’s interesting. What does it mean?

My fingers suffer from dyslexia. I meant, you left-wing kooks do that thing constantly. But oh boy, you really got me on that one. Wow, am I embarrassed.


When at a loss for rational repsonses to the "man-made CO2 is causing mass-extinction" you toss in deforestation,land use,etc etc…
Do you mean responses to the straw dog argument that “man-made CO2 is causing mass-extinction,” or do mean responses to your position (I say position instead of argument because you made none yet) against the straw dog position that “man-made CO2 is causing mass-extinction?” You seem upset that no one here is backing that straw dog. No one here is claiming that CO2 emissions alone are causing mass extinctions. Awww…too bad.

Actually you`re still pissed off because I exposed you as ill-read and lacking in faith as you said:


No IPCC scientist is claiming extinctions are due to CO2 emissions

And I corrected your blasphemy:

" The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances...20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction "

IPCC 4th Assessment Report

Of course the repsonse is, " well, we`re polluting with other stuff too you know... so there ! "

Now who in their correct frame of mind is going to engage into debate with those sort of juvenile repsonses. Fact is the contention that man-made CO2 is causing mass extinctions is just hilarious. Once again algore and the kook left exaggerates beyond belief.

Pfft~ algore and his ' I discovered love canal...love story was based on Tipper and I...I invented the net...no controling legal authority, etc.' 8)

[trish]

Sorry, not still not backing the straw dog no matter how hard you want to push it. If you could read the stuff you past (out of context by the way) you’d know that no one but you regards it as a blasphemy to suggest extinctions. For one thing, no one but you would phrase it in religious terms. That shows you who the real zealot is around here, doesn’t it.

Since you didn’t deny your noodle is short and flaccid it, I take the following is still your position:

Previously unidentified species are being discovered almost every week.
Therefore there are no mass extinctions.

Are you sure it’s your fingers that are dyslexic…I think it’s your mind.

[White_Male_Canada]

Sorry, not still not backing the straw dog no matter how hard you want to push it. If you could read the stuff you past (out of context by the way) you’d know that no one but you regards it as a blasphemy to suggest extinctions. For one thing, no one but you would phrase it in religious terms. That shows you who the real zealot is around here, doesn’t it.

Since you didn’t deny your noodle is short and flaccid it, I take the following is still your position:

Previously unidentified species are being discovered almost every week.
Therefore there are no mass extinctions.

Are you sure it’s your fingers that are dyslexic…I think it’s your mind.

Hardy-har-har you lil` brat.

Fact is the left is now attempting to lump pollution in with "man-made CO2 is causing mass extinctions". You can`t mix the mythical 'man`s CO2 is causing the end of the world' with your mercury filled light bulbs made in China in order to save 5 bucks on your light bill as a valid argument.

Fuhh-get about it. 8)

[trish]

You can`t mix the mythical 'man`s CO2 is causing the end of the world' with your mercury filled light bulbs made in China in order to save 5 bucks on your light bill as a valid argument.

Fuhh-get about it.

Cite the law of logic that says an effect cannot have multiple causes, can't seem to find it anywhere.

[Rogers]

Man, you are such an dumb asshole, _Canada.


Glutton for punishment I see.
You've ignored warnings from both myself and LG that you were digging yourself into a hole, so it's now time to bury you in your bullshit. Besides, I am far too busy to waste my time on a dullard faschist.



The "mass extinction crisis" is not just a direct quote from Al Gore's book….

algore- An Inconvenient Truth,

"In fact, we are facing what biologists are beginning to describe as a mass extinction crisis, with a rate of extinction now 1,000 times higher than the normal background rate." (p. 163)
In reply to me saying that the current "mass extinction crisis" is not just a direct quote from Al Gore's book, dumbfuck _Canada, goes and takes an actual quote from the said book and gives a page reference. Oh well, that's all the proof I needed that he made this discovery. Do you realize how constantly stupid you are. You wouldn't happen to be dyslexic, would you? Is that why the extent of your scientific knowledge is limited to two popular science books by Al Gore and Lowell Ponte? Books and papers on the "Sixth Extinction" existed long before Al Gore published his book in 2006.
"The Sixth Extinction" by Richard Leakey & Roger Lewin (1995)
http://www.orionbooks.co.uk/MP-7038/The-Sixth-Extinction.htm
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/sixthextinction.html

The fundamental basis of the “Sixth Extinction” is the robust (i.e. tested) theory of Island Biogeography. In essence, when we lose X amount of habitat area through destruction and pollution, we lose Y amount of species. Climate change has nothing to do with it, dumbfuck _Canada.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7051.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_biogeography
http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Island_Biogeography.html

The robust theory of Island Biogeography is simply conveyed in the following clip from the BBC's wildlife documentary series, "The State of the Planet". It stars E.O. Wilson, the co-author of the theory, and just so you know, dumbfuck _Canada, any habitat is an "Island", it doesn't have to be an actual island surrounded by water. Central Park in NYC is an Island, although not a very natural one.
Easter Island - A Warning for Our Times
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9COPmOsyUIw



I don't know, or care, what Al Gore says about it, but it is happening, and he didn't invent the term…Maybe Al Gore is saying that, but he's not a scientist...Al Gore is right.
Resorting to cheating again, _Canada. :smh


Known species extinctions in the last several centuries total about 1,000, with very few if any solely attributed to man-made climate change.
Well duh, dumb fucking pantywaist. If you'd actually read and understood what I'd actually written straw man _Canada, you dyslexic dumbfuck, you would have seen that I was agreeing with you that climate change was not the initiator of the "Sixth Extinction" that all professional biologists agree is currently happening. That's why I listed the factors involved above so you could understand, dumbfuck _Canada. Biologists and the IPCC are agreed that rapid climate change in the present and near future will cause a further increase in the number of species' becoming extinct. The reason for this is very simple. The vast majority of species occupy a small area. All species have a temperature range at which they can live happily in. When the temperature changes rapidly, species eventually have to migrate or die. Most species are unable to migrate. These are established scientific facts. AGW is the most recent extinction pressure species’ now face. It is, and was not, the initiator of the “Sixth Extinction”, over-exploitation of hunted species and habitat loss due to deforestation and pollution were.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/abs/nature02121.html
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/archive/00000083/
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/strategies/art21202.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070604205627.htm

Global Warming: Impacts on Wildlife and Society
Take note of the part where Dr. Parmesan says the butterfly has gone extinct from the warmest part of its range, and keep in mind that butterlies are very mobile, unlike most species.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJxR4wVsR7Y


In desperation you attempt to lump other causes into the eqaution when this topic is about algore and co2.

Algore`s book, An Inconvenient Truth is rife with either one sided, misleading,speculative,exaggerated or just plain wrong statements:

Misleading statements
• It blames global warming for a “mass extinction crisis” that is not, in fact, occurring
No one is lumping these causes together here but you, because you are too much of a dumbass to understand basic high school science. Again you are ignorant of the complexity of science, and that is why you continue to lose the debate. And don't just put up another list of recently discovered species, dumbfuck _Canada. Do you actually think that those species you put up links for have just come into existence? All species we see are the "ghosts of evolution past". Or do you think they only materialized just before we discovered them? Surely you're not that dumb? But maybe you are, and maybe you get more of your scientific "knowledge" from comic books like the X-men.
HOW MANY SPECIES ARE THERE?
http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/thomas.wolosz/howmanysp.htm


You`re true colors are beginning to show VillageIdiot. 8)
It's official, you're crazy. :screwy :lol: I ain't Quinn, dumbass. But I’ll take that as a compliment, because Quinn appears to be one of the most intelligent and respected poster's here. Like I've said, if anyone is the Village Idiot here it's you. 8)

[Rogers]

8)

[Rogers]

Tut, tut, White_Male_Cockslut, I have taught you some fundamental pillars of scientific knowledge and philosophy all through this thread now, and you have responded with dirty little pictures. It only serves to prove what a weak and pathetic little man you really are. What is a gay man like yourself, Want_Male_Cock, doing here anyhow? You’re not a closet transsexual are you? And if so, is that "hot fudge owned" pic a self pic of yourself, or just someone you’d like to be? ROTFLMAO.

[LG]

Let's analyse this one sentence:


[b] Known species extinctions in the last several centuries total about 1,000, with very few if any solely attributed to man-made climate change. In desperation you attempt to lump other causes into the eqaution when this topic is about algore and co2.

Okay, I've even found the website you've lifted that first sentence from. The guy is a doctoral student in astronomy, has his own website where he airs his own views about such diverse subjects as the environment, nuclear weapons, terrorism, abortion and the Baptist church. A real expert, huh?

And please note that using the words "solely attributed to climate change" is inane and self-defeating. For one thing, you are accepting that some may be partly attributed to climate change. For another, you do not realise that climate change in itself is not often the direct cause but that the extinctions come about as result of habitat loss or another factor. Nor do you seem to accept that several factors may lead to a species becoming extinct. Finally, of course few of the known extinctions from the last several centuries can be linked to man-made climate change, since man-made climate change was much less of an issue centuries ago.

All of the above show that the guy who wrote the sentence you quote is good at finding clever ways of knocking Gore's argument yet saying nothing at all- lying, you might say. Either that or he's a moron. And, for quoting it, you are either one or the other too. I can't say which is worse.

Now let it go before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

[svenson]

white-male-canada is so sad hes patetic

[guyone]

What kind of commie poll is that???


(Yes it's in red so all you bolsheviks will have no problem reading it.)

[qeuqheeg222]

lot of talk about CO2 but what about the sulfurs methane and chloroflourocarbonites which all are really bad for the atmosphere when compared to co2..where do all these come from?huh?oh yeah rush limbaugh says volcanic activity.....................

[White_Male_Canada]

What kind of commie poll is that???


(Yes it's in red so all you bolsheviks will have no problem reading it.)

Hilarious ! :lol: algore the scientist !? Ya know their whipped when "rogers" thinks algore is a scientist and science is run by consensus. Either that or some school is just silly enough to award algore an honorary in exchange for making a slide-show science fiction schlockumentary that created unwarranted hysteria over an unproven theory. :lol:


...thanks to leftist scientist Al Gore

A-ha-haa !!! :lol:

This is it, it`s over. Another notch on my gun. 8)

[trish]

Do you think God runs science? Or that scientists elect a grand pubah who runs every thing? Or perhaps you think it's carried out at the point of gun. Science IS run by consensus you idiot!! The consensus may be wrong, but so long as scientists objectively examine the evidence and constantly test their hypothesis science will remain self-correcting.

[trish]

Sorry neo, I'm not a bolshevik, couldn't read it.

[Rogers]

What kind of commie poll is that???


(Yes it's in red so all you bolsheviks will have no problem reading it.)

Hilarious ! :lol: algore the scientist !? Ya know their whipped when "rogers" thinks algore is a scientist and science is run by consensus. Either that or some school is just silly enough to award algore an honorary in exchange for making a slide-show science fiction schlockumentary that created unwarranted hysteria over an unproven theory. :lol:


...thanks to leftist scientist Al Gore

A-ha-haa !!! :lol:

This is it, it`s over. Another notch on my gun. 8)

[Rogers]

Either that or some school is just silly enough to award algore an honorary...
Read it and weep, wingnut!
http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/uofcpublications/oncampus/weekly/april27-07/gore
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/02/19/70823

[White_Male_Canada]

Either that or some school is just silly enough to award algore an honorary...
Read it and weep
http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/uofcpublications/oncampus/weekly/april27-07/gore


Sure, and now algore is fully qualified to write millions of lines of code and create his own CGMs :lol: We know the results will be just as fucked as the U.N.`s IPCC. :lol:

Wait, found another degree algore deserves: :lol:

[trish]

Still waiting for you to concede there is no law of logic that says an effect can’t have multiple causes, WMC…or don’t you ever admit when you’re wrong?

And I see you’re still standing behind the “logic” in your argument:

We’re discovering previously unidentified species every day.
Therefore there are no extinctions.

[Rogers]

Sure, and now algore is fully qualified to write millions of lines of code and create his own CGMs :lol: We know the results will be just as fucked as the U.N.`s IPCC. :lol:

Wait, found another degree algore deserves: :lol:
There are such things as amateur scientists, _Canada? You should know, because you are one, ROTFLMAO!!! Al Gore is just another straw man for you wingnut skeptics, and it clearly is politics that is driving your "science". Any professional/real scientist will tell you that politics has no place in science! 8)

[Rogers]

WMC…or don’t you ever admit when you’re wrong?