Yes, in the lib world, everything is possible!

LOL

Of course it can Al…now it is time for your massage!

Psssst Al…this one has been paid to get to that “very special area” that bothers you.

Now go Al…we will call you when we need you!

My grandmother had a 6th grade education and shew knew more about the jet stream and weather patterns than Al Gore. We went through this same pattern 25 years ago.

A New Al Gore Poem

Careful . No need to rub AlGore the wrong way .

Calvin said:
A New Al Gore Poem

Emergency Poem !

“Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to walk through all the snow (that’s right, hippies. SNOW!) down the street to get a pack of cigarettes. Sure, scientists claim they’ll give me cancer but I don’t have cancer yet, therefore I never will ever.”

Oh please. Is there ANY kind of weather that would ever disprove your little new age religion?

notsofast said:
Yes, in the lib world, everything is possible!

LOL

You mean the fact based one, notsosmart/pablo/felixw/ndanielson/just4thefax/calvin?

By the way, Al Gore was also a major cheerleader for WMD in Iraq for over a decade. Funny how you lemmings never want to bring that up.

The earths climate has been changing for over 4 billion years. These people just try and scare the masses with the “man caused Global Warming”…or now called “Climate Change” in order to get what they want. Similar to how neocons use the fear of terrorism to push their BS.

now click your heels together three times while repeating there can be more snow with AGW; there can be more snow with AGW…

Hey Al, how many millions of dollars did you make today on your scam?

Global Warming is true. I saw it in a movie. I also know it will happen 3 years after the space aliens come down and blow up the White House. But don’t worry, The guy from Men In Black will save the day along with that guy who was messing around with dinosaurs.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
You mean the fact based one, notsosmart/pablo/felixw/ndanielson/just4thefax/calvin?

Really?

Good thing that when Al is in his private jet, he can fly above the snow clouds.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Hey Al, how many millions of dollars did you make today on your scam?

Probably the same number of millions Beck made on his. By the way if it wasn’t for one of Gore’s “scams” you wouldn’t be able to complain on the internet each and everyday about jackshit. Show some respect.

Calvin said:
Really?

Shoe fits.

According to my source, the end of the world will be on February 14th, in the year two thousand and sixteen. Valentine’s Day. Bummer.

Al Gore, sounds familiar, fraud, climate nut or something, had a hockey stick movie, made little kids hate humans, yup, I remember that prick , How is the old bastard? All tucked into his 20,000 square feet in comfort I assume?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Shoe fits.

Explainify how you came to that conclusion, if you would.

Al’s house is so big, the surrounding county gets colder when he turns his lights on.

UNreasonable Lib seems to think AL was telling the truth when he said he invented the internet. HAHA!

Just an update, 5 years ago yesterday, Al said we have 10 years to save the planet from the warming!! So enjoy your last 5 years on earth people! Too bad it’s too cold to go outside and enjoy it, huh?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
You mean the fact based one, notsosmart/pablo/felixw/ndanielson/just4thefax/calvin?

You forgot to add Tyler Durden .

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
UNreasonable Lib seems to think AL was telling the truth when he said he invented the internet. HAHA!

Al Gore didn’t say he “invented the internet”. “HAHA” is the expression:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Fact is Gore is responsible for much of the internet accessibility of today. You can stay in your childish, idiotic, partisan lala land or you can accept the truth.

Calvin said:
You forgot to add Tyler Durden .

Thank you for pointing that out.

Dronetek said:
Oh please. Is there ANY kind of weather that would ever disprove your little new age religion?

That’s kind of the point, “weather” is of only minor relevance when it comes down to undertstanding climate change, and individual weather patterns are of no relevance. Now, if the average global temperature were to decrease over the course of the next decade, seeing how the last two decades have shown a steady increase, then we’d be talking about powerful evidence, certainly more powerful than the evidence supporting, say, the “invisible hand” of the market, or trickle down economics.

my god,stupidity at work,no wonder you morons voted for bush twice.

Calvin said:
Explainify how you came to that conclusion, if you would.

similar bullshit talking points, personality & grammar. As a matter of fact it’s exactly the same 90% of the time. Possibly a coincidence, but not likely.

As long as Al can continue using the private jets, the limos, and live in a house the size of Rhode Island, I am glad to sacrifice.

29 comments
notsofast says:
February 2, 2011 at 1:41 pm notsofast(Quote)
14 4
Yes, in the lib world, everything is possible!

LOL

you are a moron sir,the writer of this post did not mean what you think.

beamangrow said:
my god,stupidity at work,no wonder you morons voted for bush twice.

I would say it is people like you, people who voted for Clitton, Gore, Kerry, and 0bama who are the stupid ones. Yeah, OK, Bush was not the greatest president we’ve ever had, but knowing what I know now, if I were asked to make the same choices, I would still vote for Bush (while holding my nose.)

As we have come to understand (those of us with our eyes open, that is) Gore’s rabid claims about global warming are so obviously wrong that only idiots still believe him. Gore is all about advancing his bank account and nothing about helping anyone but himself. He is a liar and a hypocrite and is losing credibility with every snowflake that falls. It takes a uniquely stupid person to remain lost in his lies.

I wonder who got blamed for the various shifts in climate over the past 4 billion years before man started rockin’ the evil carbon fuels.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
similar bullshit talking points, personality & grammar. As a matter of fact it’s exactly the same 90% of the time. Possibly a coincidence, but not likely.

Gotcha’.

Just how dumb do Jon and Gore think we are? These projections are done by the same computers that can’t tell you what the temp will be tomorrow, yet somehow these “scientists” claim that their long range predictions tell us what the temp will be in ten, twenty or even fifty years from now.
Gore doesn’t know what he is talking about and Jon you are a fool.

My latest video of the blizzard in N.W. Indiana today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf0aEmpPATU

Question…. is there ANY weather system that DOESN’T point to “climate change” in Al Gore’s mind??? On a side not I make it my personal mission to have the same carbon footprint as Al Gore. I leave all my light on, run my car at all times, keep all doors and windows open while running AC/Heat at full blast, use old light bulbs, drive an SUV with a leak in the tank, and fly as often as possible even if it’s easier to drive. I’m not there yet but to get closer to Al Gores carbon footprint I’d have to buy my own rain forest and burn it. ;)

I’m doing my part. While dining out, I tell my limo driver not to leave the motor running. Let him freeze his ass off.

Writer, congrats on providing the most LOL’s of all the mediaite posters!!

The following is from someone that makes predictions that turn out to be right.

Bastardi: Three of Next Five Winters Could be as Cold or Colder
Feb 2, 2011; 11:21 AM ET

This winter is on track to become the coldest for the nation as a whole since the 1980s or possibly even the late 1970s. According to AccuWeather.com Chief Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi, three or four out of the next five winters could be just as cold, if not colder.
He is worried that next winter, for example, will be colder than this one.
Bastardi adds that with the U.S. in the middle of one of its worst recessions in its history and the price of oil in question, he is extremely concerned about the prospect for more persistent cold weather in the coming years putting increased financial hardship on Americans.
“Cold is a lot worse than warm,” Bastardi said, “and that’s why your energy bill goes up during the winter time: because of the fact that it takes a lot to heat a house.”
While there are many different factors that are playing into Bastardi’s forecast, one of the primary drivers is La Niña and the trends that have been observed in winters that follow the onset of a La Niña.
Current La Nina Signals More Cold Winters Ahead
La Niña occurs when sea surface temperatures across the equatorial central and eastern Pacific are below normal. La Niña and its counterpart, El Niño, which occurs when sea surface temperatures of the same region are above normal, have a large influence on the weather patterns that set up across the globe.
The current La Niña, which kicked in this past summer, is unprecedented after becoming the strongest on record in December 2010. Bastardi thinks this La Niña will last into next year, though it will be weaker, and will not disappear completely until 2012.
According to Bastardi, studies over the past 100 years or so show that after the first winter following the onset of a La Niña, the next several winters thereafter tend to be colder than normal in the U.S.
He says the first winter during a La Niña tends to be warm. The next winter that follows is usually less warm, and the winter after that is usually cold.
“There’s a natural tendency for that to happen because of the large-scale factors,” Bastardi commented. “What’s interesting about what we’re seeing here is that [the current La Niña] is starting so cold.”
Temperatures this winter so far are averaging below normal across much of the eastern two-thirds of the country.
He adds, “If the past predicts the future, then the first year La Niña is warmer than the combination of the following two.”
He said that with the exception of the winters of 1916-1917 and 1917-1918, the first year of every moderate or stronger La Niña available for study has featured a warmer-than-normal winter from the Plains eastward. This winter, it has been colder than normal.
Taking a look at one of the exceptions, the La Niña winter of 1916-1917, colder-than-normal conditions were observed across the northern part of the Plains and East (not the South). Bastardi said that never before have colder-than-normal conditions been observed across the South during a first-year La Niña winter, as has been the case this winter.
If this winter, which has been colder than normal across the eastern two-thirds of the country, is historically supposed to be the warmest of the next three winters for the U.S., according to Bastardi, we have some frigid times ahead.
Bastardi: Shift to Colder Climate Predicted Next 20-30 Years
Bastardi thinks that not only will the next few winters be colder than normal for much of the U.S., but that the long-term climate will turn colder over the next 20 to 30 years.
“What’s interesting about what we’re seeing here is that [the current La Niña] is starting so cold,” said Bastardi, “and it’s coinciding with bigger things that are pushing the overall weather patterns and climate in the Northern Hemisphere and, in fact, globally over the next 20 to 30 years that we have not really dealt with, nor can we really quantify.”
“That ties into a lot of this arguing over climate change,” he added.
Bastardi has pointed out that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which is a pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases usually about every 20 to 30 years, has shifted into a “cold” or “negative” phase.
Over the past 30 years or so, according to Bastardi, the PDO has been “warm” or “positive.”
This change to a cold PDO over the next 20 to 30 years, he says, will cause La Niñas to be stronger and longer than El Niños. Bastardi adds that when El Niños do kick in, if they try to come on strong like they did last year, they will get “beaten back” pretty quickly.
“When you have a cold PDO and lots of La Niñas, when El Niños do come on, you generally tend to have cold, snowy weather patterns across the U.S.,” Bastardi said. “That’s what we saw in the 1960s and 1970s.”
In Summary
Overall, Bastardi is predicting three or four of the next five winters to be colder than normal for much of the U.S., based on trends observed in La Niñas throughout history.
He is concerned that, amid the current recession, more colder-than-normal conditions in the winters ahead will put extra financial strain on families in the form of higher heating bills.
Bastardi is also predicting the long-term climate to turn colder over the next 20 to 30 years with global temperatures, as measured by satellite, returning to levels they were at in the late 1970s.

I don’t share your faith, Jon Bershad, but I respect your right to believe in it.

So you guys are listening to the moron Bill o. for scientific advice. The same idiot who doesn’t understand how the tide works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI

poolviking said:
So you guys are listening to the moron Bill o. for scientific advice. The same idiot who doesn’t understand how the tide works.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI

And you’re listening to Al Gore. The guy with an energy bill the size of Joy Bahear’s ass.

tatboy said:
The guy with an energy bill the size of Joy Bahear’s ass.

More like Joy Behars ass multiplied by Rosie Odonells, but that’s beside the point.

RE:You can set your watch by it ever year. Whenever there’s snow on the ground, as sure there are children hoping for a snow day, there’s someone out there smugly shaking their head and saying, “Guess Al Gore was wrong about that whole Global Warming thing, huh?”

Pot calling kettle, come in kettle. The man-made global-warming snow-jobbers do this constantly. In fact, they were doing it so much that when you hear someone mock global warming in this way, he is as likely as not simply mocking the crap logic with another example of it. How many years were we witnessing the news with summer afternoon traffic backups on record temperature days discussed as examples of global warming. And every time a big storm hits, global warming. And every time , global warming.

OF COURSE it’s idiotic to cite a hot day, a cold day, a big snow, a tornado, a whatever, as evidence of both climate change and man’s effect on it. Understand that much of the mocking of global warming with this sort of evidence is simply blowback from people who got this crap fed to them by people who want to seize control of global energy markets.

What is truly ironic is that the snide comments from the global warming believers about the merits of science and reason. The tout themselves as enlightened. They scoff at the superstitious sheep who throughout history were duped by priests and seers into slaughtering livestock and people, praying, chanting, and performing other rites in order to appease various gods.

And yet, what’s really modern is the updating of the same old scam. These “sophisticated” people are simply falling for the updated version of snake oil they so condescendingly condemn others for buying. Do you really believe the snake-oil salesmen of the past didn’t have a bag of tricks? Like studying the heavens, anticipating an eclipse, and then claiming they made it happen? Or other tricks and bullying tactics?

Science is not a democracy. The fools of today scoff at the masses who were unconvinced by the few minds like Galileo or Copernicus, drowned out by a sea of clerics and kings who wielded power. And yet these same people want to claim some percentage of “scientists” or some percentage of “studies” proves their ridiculous claims about the state of climate and its causes. Among these you’ll find things like the American Bar Association’s report on global warming, as an example.

The science behind skepticism of the Gore camp is based largely on astronomy and the fossil record, as well showing the statistical uselessness of the arguments for the Gore camp. The science in the Gore camp is largely based on computer models. I could write a computer model that shows that global climate is based on changes in women’s pubic hair grooming habits.

Let me give you four thoughts on the “global warming” topic that you can ABSOLUTELY TAKE TO THE BANK.

1. Global warming is FAR preferable to global cooling. Global cooling is genuinely scary.
2. Global warming and cooling have been shown from the fossil record to have been cycling for a long time, and about 2/3 of the last 500,000 years have been ice ages. (Which are due again anytime now. Which is why scientists from 1950 to 1070 brought such a scare to the public consciousness, with reason.)
3. At least 99.99 percent of the people who adamantly dismiss the null hypothesis and insist that climate change is primarily caused by humans have zero functioning knowledge of the science, the scientists involved. or anything else. They are simply taking the word of political opinion sources who have their ears.
4. Like it or not, the probability of humans causing cataclysmic climate change as predicted by Al Gore is AT LEAST THOUSANDS of times smaller than the probability of cataclysmic economic disasters predicted by Glenn Beck. And this is true REGARDLESS of how stupid, crazy, foolish, or deceptive you consider Glenn Beck to be.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
You mean the fact based one, notsosmart/pablo/felixw/ndanielson/just4thefax/calvin?

Son, stick to your race baiting- your better at that!

Drudge has been all over this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d70iXVN5EVM&feature=player_embedded#

This is a fun complication of Dems talking about how there will be a lack of snow in the future because of Global Warming.

Which one is it? It cant be both.

Sit on that and Spin it, Gore.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Just an update, 5 years ago yesterday, Al said we have 10 years to save the planet from the warming!! So enjoy your last 5 years on earth people! Too bad it’s too cold to go outside and enjoy it, huh?

I am not very informed on Global Warming. However, I can’t be as negative about it as you right wing nut-jobs are. What is the harm in making whatever small change a person can do to support the idea. Why do Republicans always cut off their nose to spite their face?

BlackWidow said:
I am not very informed

You should have stopped there, dear.

Spiderlady says:

I am not very informed on Global Warming. However, I can’t be as negative about it as you right wing nut-jobs are. What is the harm in making whatever small change a person can do to support the idea. Why do Republicans always cut off their nose to spite their face?

Oh I’m all for being good to the planet, but the whole STATED goal of the global warming scam is distribution of wealth! That, I have NO interest in. I also have no use for stories like this one:

(ABC News)- Isabel Theoret was preparing a sandwich for her 6-year-old son’s Kindergarten class one day last week, when he screamed out, “No Mommy! Not a Ziploc!”

The child, who lives with his family in the town of Laval in Quebec, explained that his teacher would exclude him from a contest to win a stuffed teddy bear if he brought an environmentally unfriendly plastic baggie to school.

“Felix explained with lots of emotion and tears in his eyes that there was a simple condition to entering the drawing: Don’t use a Ziploc bag in their lunch,” his father, Marc-Andre Lanciault wrote on his French-language blog, ”Notre Vie” [Our Life].

“Felix reacted as if someone had slaughtered a pig for his ham sandwich,” said his father, who is CEO and founder of the technology company INBOX International.

When the father questioned Felix’s teacher, she responded, “You know, Mr. Lanciault, it’s not very good for the environment,” according to a report in Canada’s National Post. “We have to take care of our planet and the bags do not decompose well.”

People like this are freaks who want nothing more than to control people. And I’m REALLY sick of liberal hypocrites like this:

Redford’s Eco-Hypocrisy Exposed in Short Film ‘Hypocrite’

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/driehl/2011/02/02/redfords-environmentalism-exposed-in-short-film-hypocrite/

And don’t tell me to peddle my bike to work while you fly around in private jets and live in a house that uses more electricity than some small towns!

BlackWidow said:
I am not very informed on Global Warming. However, I can’t be as negative about it as you right wing nut-jobs are. What is the harm in making whatever small change a person can do to support the idea. Why do Republicans always cut off their nose to spite their face?

There is nothing wrong with individuals doing their part. What the issue is when government mandates it and forces it upon us while they fly their luxury jets and live in their huge homes.

I find it interesting that you guys decided to use a standard head shot of Mr. O’Reilly while using perhaps the most unflattering pic of Gore I’ve ever seen. I really find it hard to beleive that no one at Mediaite couldn’t come up with a better pic of the man. That combined with the snarky warning about falling asleep from listening to Gore once again shows what gutless hacks the staff at Mediaite has become. Yet you totally ignore the real story that there are over 200 peer reviewed scientific studies that all say global climate change is real and it is due to man made activities and there is not one study that refutes them.

GIVE THE MONEY BACK YOU PHONY CROOK!

Gosh, how could all those stupid people out there not believe SCIENTISTS!? I guess they’re not as smart as this author who knows that SCIENTISTS don’t all agree on this and that sometimes, SCIENTISTS are wrong. They got the cigarettes right, though…just not the coffee, chocolate, the number of planets in the solar system, etc… And let’s not forget that global warming is a theory with evidence that supports AND disproves it. It’s not a fact…

This article is further evidence of how are schools are failing.

Anyone who’s taken a solid earth science class could understand how global warming could lead to increased snowfall during winter time….and more extreme weather conditions in all seasons.

There are many factors that play into the weather: air mosture, temperatures…all of which are affected by ocean currents, which in turn affect air currents, etc.

I could go on and on…but trying to argue facts with people who are bound and determined to believe that all science is a hoax is probably a hopeless exercise.

For God’s sake, why does climate have to be a partisan issue??

The real debate should be around what to DO about climate change….not whether it exists. Sheesh.

Mistype: previous comment should say “How OUR schools are failing”.

In some ways, it’s unfortunate that Al Gore has become the de facto spokesman for the climate change issue.

It take what is a real and serious issue and turns it into a partisan political football.

Most serious, non partisan scientists will tell you that the climate is changing.

We may differ about how we should deal with climate change….so let THAT be the debate. But why have debates over whether the sky is blue?

I think you guys are missing the sarcasm that Bershad is using to what appears to be goofing on O’Reilly’s simple minded logic.

YOUR photo showed him “smacking” his head – doesn’t that HURT?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Fact is Gore is responsible for much of the internet accessibility of today. You can stay in your childish, idiotic, partisan lala land or you can accept the truth.

Fact? Proof, please. What did Gore do that makes him responsible for much of the internet access of today? I am more responsible for providing internet access of today than Gore is.

I think you’re in childish, idiotic, partisan lala land.

Nacho said:
I think you guys are missing the sarcasm that Bershad is using to what appears to be goofing on O’Reilly’s simple minded logic.

I think you’re missing The Gore Effect.

mibwilso said:
Most serious, non partisan scientists will tell you that the climate is changing.

.
So true. So true that I, an unrepentant conservative, agree with you on this without a scintilla of reservation.

Where I part ways with you, however, is the exact nature of the change and man’s ability to either cause it or stop it.

I also vehemently oppose all the high handed political power grabs in the name of AGW. The Green’s political stance is nothing more than socialism/marism in the name of The Goddess Earth rather than the proletariat.

JamesA1102 said:
find it interesting that you guys decided to use a standard head shot of Mr. O’Reilly while using perhaps the most unflattering pic of Gore I’ve ever seen.

There. Fixed.

Pablo said:
I think you’re missing The Gore Effect.

.
Pablo, where do you get all those great links.

I can’t stop giggling and snickering over that one.

Bravo!!!!!!

beamangrow said:
my god,stupidity at work,no wonder you morons voted for bush twice.

No, I actually voted for Gore. I feel dirty.

“Carbon Credits.” The way Gore (and others) make money of their Global Warming talk. They are an undeniable scam, with no oversight, no regulations, and no effect on the environment.

“Carbon Credits” are the scam.

BlackWidow said:
What is the harm in making whatever small change a person can do to support the idea.

We’re not talking about small changes. We’re talking about many, many billions of dollars of negative economic impact.

Grammie said:
.
Pablo, where do you get all those great links.

I can’t stop giggling and snickering over that one.

Bravo!!!!!!

I have a head stuffed with trivia and mad Google-fu! :-)

Grammie said:
I can’t stop giggling and snickering over that one.

Isn’t the “dead polar bear” ON THE BEACH IN CANCUN hilarious? Ah, lefties.

Pablo said:
We’re not talking about small changes. We’re talking about many, many billions of dollars of negative economic impact.

That’s the BS they are peddling you. Hey if you believe that, I’ve got a great bridge you might want to buy.

I’ll settle for some facts, James. Got any?

JamesA1102 said:Yet you totally ignore the real story that there are over 200 peer reviewed scientific studies that all say global climate change is real and it is due to man made activities and there is not one study that refutes them.

Woohoo, more science by vote! That’s how it works all right. Which is why the Earth was flat and also why it was the center of the universe.

mibwilso said:
In some ways, it’s unfortunate that Al Gore has become the de facto spokesman for the climate change issue. It take what is a real and serious issue and turns it into a partisan political football. Most serious, non partisan scientists will tell you that the climate is changing. We may differ about how we should deal with climate change….so let THAT be the debate. But why have debates over whether the sky is blue?

We will deal with climate change the same way all animals and humans have dealt with for millions of years of it up to now. Find a way to stay warm when it’s way freakin’ colder. Enjoy all the food and comfort when it’s warmer, like it is now. Or perish if we don’t.

When you ask why we have debates over whether the sky is blue, don’t you mean, “why are there some people arguing that man is making the sky blue?”

Following up from the note above, I gather all the “serious, non-partisan scientists” are the ones you picked?

Bill, what causes the rise of the tides again…LOL?

funny that the alarmist never factor in the most important thing about climate change.THE SUN

I believe in climate change.

I found a piece of fossilized coral in my back yard. It is from when a shallow saltwater sea existed across Wisconsin and Michigan 350-400 million years ago. 10,000 years ago Glaciers reshaped the landscape of Wisconsin and my back yard. This never would have happened had we had a carbon tax or Al Gore back then.

Global Warming: Snowfall is just a thing of the past. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Science!

Mr B said:
Global Warming: Snowfall is just a thing of the past. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Science!

.
Thank you so much for that link. I looked for it earlier today and couldn’t come up with the right terms to find it. Probably b/c I thought it was James Hansen who had said it.

For any who might not take the trouble here is the coup de grace from the article 11, note eleven, years ago:

“However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. “

mibwilso said:
The real debate should be around what to DO about climate change….not whether it exists. Sheesh.

Um…..we deal with it just like the earth has been dealing with climate change for 4 billion years. It’s part of the planet and solar system.

“Global Warming” became “Climate Change”
“Climatologists” and “Climate Science” became “Scientific Community”
“Snowy Winters” became “a thing of the past” and then EXTREMLY Snowy Winters”

Al Gore and his crew are clinging to this ruse they devised in the midst of the most recent lunar influenced warming cycle. That has ended and we are headed back into a cooling cycle. This is what the Earth in relation to its Moon and the Sun does. It goes through warming and cooling cycles. This is verifiable through carbon dating going back eons. We know of the ice age, which was nearly 11,000 years ago because of carbon dating. And we know that the Earth has Ice Age cycles every 10,000-11,000 years . . . and if you are following the logic . . . then yes, we are due for another ice age.

The fact of the matter is, Al Gore and the “Climate Science” crowd (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) sound a lot more like Creationists when it comes to defending their theory of global warming. Whenever well established facts get in their way, they simply re-write the facts to suit their argument.

Gore’s position on Global Warming is classic ‘daddy-state’ rhetoric. He and his posse cooked this scheme up years ago as a means of accelerating the transition from oil. He should just be honest with us and reveal that. Because we do need to accelerate the development, innovation and deployment of renewable, sustainable fuel technologies. But not because of Global Warming . . . because oil is obsolete and renewable fuel means job creation, economic development, independence and liberty.

Pablo said:
I’ll settle for some facts, James. Got any?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

Just_MC said:
Woohoo, more science by vote! That’s how it works all right. Which is why the Earth was flat and also why it was the center of the universe.

Woohoo, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Peer reviewed scientific studies are not votes nor were there any peer reviewed studies saying the earth was flat or the center of the universe.

JamesA1102 said:
Woohoo, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Peer reviewed scientific studies are not votes nor were there any peer reviewed studies saying the earth was flat or the center of the universe.

Hey bozo. Do a little looking around academia and see how the “peer reviewed” sausage is made. They most assuredly are tantamount to votes when the “peer” universe gets into their pissing contests.

And when the political powers within the Church and without wanted the Earth to be flat, or to be the center of the universe, they most assuredly saw to it that their opinion won. And no amount of scientific rigor from a Galileo or a Copernicus was allowed to win, no matter how truthful it was. The “mainstream” of their scholarly world chose the [wrong] answer in a vote of groupthink rather than by careful study.

So it goes with the lucrative world of climate change study.

12,000-15,000 thousand years ago Seattle was under a glacial ice sheet. My SUV didn’t cause it to melt! Naturally occuring climate change did. The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. Always has and always will. That’s not to say I don’t believe in protecting our planet – I do. Just not AL Gore’s way which is primarily to line his pockets with our money. We do need to find better fuel sources and develope clean energy for the good of the planet, but not at the expense of our economy so that Al Gore and his ilk can get stinking rich with their global warming scam.

Grammie said:
.
Thank you so much for that link. I looked for it earlier today and couldn’t come up with the right terms to find it. Probably b/c I thought it was James Hansen who had said it.

For any who might not take the trouble here is the coup de grace from the article 11, note eleven, years ago:

“However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. ”

It’s a good example of how wrong the liberals are about so-called human-caused Global Warming (newly rebranded as “Climate Change”).

JamesA1102 said:
Woohoo, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Peer reviewed scientific studies are not votes nor were there any peer reviewed studies saying the earth was flat or the center of the universe.

Liberal science isn’t peer-reviewed, it’s pal-reviewed. ClimateGate was a good exampleof this.

JamesA1102 said:
I find it interesting that you guys decided to use a standard head shot of Mr. O’Reilly while using perhaps the most unflattering pic of Gore I’ve ever seen.

You havent seen many pics of Gore lately then have you?

I say we just sit back and let it happen. Conservatives will keep driving Suburbans and bitching about not drilling in ANWAR and liberals will keep driving Priuses and bitching about Suburbans. Wasting all this time bitching back and forth gets nowhere, both sides know they’re right, and in the end one side will be proven correct. Hey, if the conservatives are wrong, then everybody’s grandchildren can visit the Washington Monument by boat. If liberals are wrong, conservatives will be harping on it well into the next century….and driving Suburbans fueled by ANWAR gas. (ok that last bit may be a stretch…Suburbans and Escalades could probably exhaust ANWAR in 20 years…all by themselves.)

Conservatives love them some Jesus, and Liberals loves them some science. Both belief systems attempt to explain the process of life, one with a 2000 year old book of immutable anecdotes, the other with ideas based on information that is constantly being gathered and placed into a database.

As I say, let’s sit back and argue over something really important…like…if your son commits rape….is it REALLY rape?

The Tea Weasel said:
As I say, let’s sit back and argue over something really important…like…if your son commits rape….is it REALLY rape?

Good conclusion…I like it!

Speaking of Anwar….for the did you know file. There is only 1 man and his wife who are permanent year round residents of Anwar.

Discovery Channel has a series called Flying Wild Alaska. Last week, “Jim Tweto flies a pair of true frontier folks home to their cabin, the only residence in a 17.5 million acre wildlife refuge that’s larger than West Virginia.”

Source: http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/flying-wild-alaska-a-faraway-cabin.html

This is an interesting series, if you like flying and enjoy scenery! It is on Friday nights in my area!

The Tea Weasel said:
I say we just sit back and let it happen. Conservatives will keep driving Suburbans and bitching about not drilling in ANWAR and liberals will keep driving Priuses and bitching about Suburbans. Wasting all this time bitching back and forth gets nowhere, both sides know they’re right, and in the end one side will be proven correct. Hey, if the conservatives are wrong, then everybody’s grandchildren can visit the Washington Monument by boat. If liberals are wrong, conservatives will be harping on it well into the next century….and driving Suburbans fueled by ANWAR gas. (ok that last bit may be a stretch…Suburbans and Escalades could probably exhaust ANWAR in 20 years…all by themselves.) Conservatives love them some Jesus, and Liberals loves them some science. Both belief systems attempt to explain the process of life, one with a 2000 year old book of immutable anecdotes, the other with ideas based on information that is constantly being gathered and placed into a database. As I say, let’s sit back and argue over something really important…like…if your son commits rape….is it REALLY rape?

I don’t know??? Did these son commit rape???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

tatboy said:
I don’t know??? Did these son commit rape???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

Naw them’s just some rich Yankees come South to play stickball and get frisky with the local working girls. Thanks for the wiki link, but that was local news for me.

Y’all come back now, ya hear?

Al Gore does a very nice tap dance trying to blame the larger snow storms on global warming. I would like to see his dance if he tried to explain the record low temperatures we are experiencing on global warming .

Just_MC said:
Hey bozo. Do a little looking around academia and see how the “peer reviewed” sausage is made. They most assuredly are tantamount to votes when the “peer” universe gets into their pissing contests.

You’re calling me a bozo yet you’re the one that is not only ignorant but proud of your ignorance of how the peer review process works.

Just_MC said:
And when the political powers within the Church and without wanted the Earth to be flat, or to be the center of the universe, they most assuredly saw to it that their opinion won. And no amount of scientific rigor from a Galileo or a Copernicus was allowed to win, no matter how truthful it was. The “mainstream” of their scholarly world chose the [wrong] answer in a vote of groupthink rather than by careful study.

Which exactly opposite of the peer review process. In fact it is you how is allowing politics to interfere with science because your ideology doesn’t allow you to acknowledge the results of the scientific process. That is what those who imprisoned Galileo and Copernicus did and it is what you and the right are doing.

Alz said:
Liberal science isn’t peer-reviewed, it’s pal-reviewed. ClimateGate was a good exampleof this.

So says the man completely blinded by his seething hatred of the left.

dayo said:
12,000-15,000 thousand years ago Seattle was under a glacial ice sheet. My SUV didn’t cause it to melt! Naturally occuring climate change did. The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. Always has and always will. That’s not to say I don’t believe in protecting our planet – I do. Just not AL Gore’s way which is primarily to line his pockets with our money. We do need to find better fuel sources and develope clean energy for the good of the planet, but not at the expense of our economy so that Al Gore and his ilk can get stinking rich with their global warming scam.

The problem with finding better fuel sources or cleaning up our fuel sources is it often results in making the problem worse. We don’t look at the whole picture anymore and when we implement a solution we are never allowed to go back and get rid of it or change it after we prove it makes things worse. To many people being wrapped up in being right or looking good to others.

One problem with the global warming debate is that it has monopolized the conversation and prevents us from working on real pollution problems. Fighting the attempt to scam us leaves no avenue to look for solutions to clean air because we want clean air to breath.

Those who still point to “man made climate change” continue to argue that it is science that proves it and that all deniers base their views on the fiction of the Bible. The truth is that both sides are pointing to science. The trouble with science it is easily corruptible just as politics and religion is. The science of “man made climate change” has been proven to be man made. Man made up and/or skewed the data and conspired to scam the people for there own purposes. When science was high jacked by religion we had well known scientist espouse the flat earth and now we have science high jacked by crooked politicians looking to make a buck espousing man made climate change.

JamesA1102 said:
..

Peer review is only as good as the peers reviewing it. When Galileo and Copernicus were imprisoned they were no longer able to participate in peer reviews. Anyone not agreeing with the current PC science is dismissed, disgraced or ridiculed. Research takes money and when you have corrupt people wanting to run a very profitable scam they put money into it. Funds are easily denied to scientist who refuse to go along with the desired agenda. I don’t trust science not because I believe in the Bible but because I believe in Mans greed.

Many scientist disagree with global warming but they are primarily dismissed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Cali said:
Many scientist disagree with global warming but they are primarily dismissed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I could care less about what a physicist or marine biologist thinks about global warming. That is not their field of expertise. There is still not one peer reviewed study that refutes that global climate change is real and man made.

JamesA1102 said:
That is what those who imprisoned Galileo and Copernicus did and it is what you and the right are doing.

James, you are simply parroting what others are parroting and it has become a shouting match not Peer Review. A Peer is not someone who agrees with you, a Peer is anyone who can reasonably attempt to Falsify the Theory.

Why Falsify? Because rubber stamping is exactly what Peer Review sought to avoid prior to being redefined to mean Rubber Stamping. ‘Liberal’ is another term hijacked by assholes. http://wp.me/pB8xR-6T

Now the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd does not allow people who can reasonably attempt to Falsify their ideas to participate in Peer Review, they replaced it with another PR, Public Relations. I say ideas because AGW is not even a Theory, it is collection of Effects for which the Cause is never even attempted.

Just ask anyone to describe AGW. You’ll get a bunch of subjective terms followed up with ‘simple’ explanations which only work if Gravity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are turned off. You see Gravity and the 2nd Law complicates the hell out of AGW. It does not work in Nature.

Here’s what’s wrong with AGW.

While the simpleton will focus on the fact that ultimately radiation is the only means escape for energy outside the Earth’s Convection Zone (aka Troposphere), the critical thinker also takes into consideration the extreme efficiency of Convection where it is available. You see the Earth cools from a balmy 15 C at the surface to about -56 C at the Tropopause, that’s the top of the Troposphere and the bottom of the Stratosphere.

Convection is responsible for that temperature decrease over altitude, not radiation. Now the simpleton will argue, “Hey CO2 is trapping all this radiation and causing the surface to heat up!” But the critical thinker says “Well doesn’t the Convection Rate increase as the Surface Temp increases?”, “Isn’t Convection efficient enough to serve as a surrogate medium to transfer that trapped energy up to the Tropopause via the wind?”.

The simple answer is “Yes”, to both questions and can be measured as wind. Wind and indeed most weather is a manifestation of Convection (the Earth’s surface cooling via the atmosphere). Convection is a result of uneven heating and cooling of the Earth’s surface due to multiple factors including but not limited to; Earth’s rotation (day/night), Curvature, Axis, Precession, Orbit Eccentricity, Clouds, and Surface conditions (Water, Soil, Vegetation, Slope).

Any clue why convection ceases to operate as a means for energy transfer at the Tropopause? No?

Gravity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you don’t get it, call the thought police and see if they can find any flaws.

theendisfar said:
James, you are simply parroting what others are parroting and it has become a shouting match not Peer Review. A Peer is not someone who agrees with you, a Peer is anyone who can reasonably attempt to Falsify the Theory. Why Falsify? Because rubber stamping is exactly what Peer Review sought to avoid prior to being redefined to mean Rubber Stamping. ‘Liberal’ is another term hijacked by assholes. http://wp.me/pB8xR-6T Now the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd does not allow people who can reasonably attempt to Falsify their ideas to participate in Peer Review, they replaced it with another PR, Public Relations. I say ideas because AGW is not even a Theory, it is collection of Effects for which the Cause is never even attempted. Just ask anyone to describe AGW. You’ll get a bunch of subjective terms followed up with ’simple’ explanations which only work if Gravity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are turned off. You see Gravity and the 2nd Law complicates the hell out of AGW. It does not work in Nature. Here’s what’s wrong with AGW. While the simpleton will focus on the fact that ultimately radiation is the only means escape for energy outside the Earth’s Convection Zone (aka Troposphere), the critical thinker also takes into consideration the extreme efficiency of Convection where it is available. You see the Earth cools from a balmy 15 C at the surface to about -56 C at the Tropopause, that’s the top of the Troposphere and the bottom of the Stratosphere. Convection is responsible for that temperature decrease over altitude, not radiation. Now the simpleton will argue, “Hey CO2 is trapping all this radiation and causing the surface to heat up!” But the critical thinker says “Well doesn’t the Convection Rate increase as the Surface Temp increases?”, “Isn’t Convection efficient enough to serve as a surrogate medium to transfer that trapped energy up to the Tropopause via the wind?”. The simple answer is “Yes”, to both questions and can be measured as wind. Wind and indeed most weather is a manifestation of Convection (the Earth’s surface cooling via the atmosphere). Convection is a result of uneven heating and cooling of the Earth’s surface due to multiple factors including but not limited to; Earth’s rotation (day/night), Curvature, Axis, Precession, Orbit Eccentricity, Clouds, and Surface conditions (Water, Soil, Vegetation, Slope). Any clue why convection ceases to operate as a means for energy transfer at the Tropopause? No? Gravity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you don’t get it, call the thought police and see if they can find any flaws.

Nice cut and paste. Are you a climatologist? Has anyting you said been proven on a scientific basis?

JamesA1102 said:
I could care less about what a physicist or marine biologist thinks about global warming. That is not their field of expertise. There is still not one peer reviewed study that refutes that global climate change is real and man made.

Well I am not going to recopy the entire list for you but here are 4 that were close to the top that specialize in our climate and atmosphere. I do believe that is the right specialty. Seems you are one of those I speak of who wish to silence scientist who don’t go along with the current PC agenda. In looking at the list and over half of them work in the immediate field and the rest in related fields. I would want a marine biologist on any team studying this issue as the he/she would be best qualified to study the effect on the ocean and any report lacking that discipline would be incomplete.

Richard Lindzen,Pubs Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences

Garth Paltridge,Pubs Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre

Ian Clark,Pubs hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Tim Patterson, Pubs paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada

JamesA1102 said:
There is still not one peer reviewed study that refutes that global climate change is real and man made.

The peer reviewed studies have been proven to be false and or suspect. Documents have leaked that show conspiracy to defraud. And the conversation is about the peer review as it is run today being suspect because anyone with a dissenting voice is being silenced. You prove that point when I provide a list of reputable scientist including paleoclimatologist and you dismiss the list because a marine biologist is also quoted.

JamesA1102 said:
Nice cut and paste.

They’re my words, not parroting someone else’s understanding.

JamesA1102 said:
Are you a climatologist?

Yes, and I do it for Free.

JamesA1102 said:
Has anyting you said been proven on a scientific basis?

Yes, every single statement I made has absolutely been stood the test of time. Gravity and differences in the density of air masses with varying temperatures are what drives Convection. Uneven heating and cooling allows for Convective Currents to form which increase the efficiency that would otherwise create stratified temperatures rather than the Weather Cells we commonly see.

Convection is ALWAYS more efficient than Radiation under the same conditions and within the same thermo system. Since nature is always using the most efficient means to transfer energy (entropy), any radiation, so-called ‘trapped’ will immediately use Convection as a means for escape.

The reason Convection stops at the Tropopause is that Convection only transfers heat from Hotter to Cooler regions. The Temperature gradient reverses at the tropopause meaning the atmosphere gets warmer as altitude increases to the top of the Stratosphere. Since convection can only move from hotter to colder regions, it cannot move energy from a region that averages -56 C to a region that is -55 C.

Your question obviously means you have no means by which to test either a yes or no answer. Why did you ask the question?

JamesA1102 said:
I could care less about what a physicist or marine biologist thinks about global warming.

:) This is entertaining. Thank you James :)

While you may think lowly of a Marine Biologist’s understanding of Natural Laws, you show your complete contempt for Science by disregarding a Physicist’s understanding.

Cause and Effect are to a Physicist as Numbers and Operators are to a Mathematician. You hated those questions in school didn’t you?

It occurred to me that I might go light on you given your neck deep in shit with no clue how deep it is, however, I’m rather bored with Gubment Educated Anthropogenic Myrmidons (GEAMs) who cast aspersions at those whom they disagree with without having a F’ing clue as to why you disagree other than someone else you’ve heard of supposedly disagrees.

You pretend to talk science when you have zero understanding of it. The absolute best that you can accomplish here is to be faithful to those whom you parrot.

Dollars to dimes the person you’re parroting has no F’ing clue what they are talking about either.

Cali said:
The peer reviewed studies have been proven to be false and or suspect.

By whom??? Name the scientific authority that has done so with any of the over 200 peer reviewed study on global climate change. You just don’t like the results because of your ideology.

theendisfar said:
They’re my words, not parroting someone else’s understanding.

Could have fooled me.

theendisfar said:
Yes, and I do it for Free.

Really? Where did you get your degree in climatology? How many papers have you published on the subject? Have any of them been peer reviewed? Please provide links.

theendisfar said:
They’re my words, not parroting someone else’s understanding. Yes, and I do it for Free. Yes, every single statement I made has absolutely been stood the test of time. Gravity and differences in the density of air masses with varying temperatures are what drives Convection. Uneven heating and cooling allows for Convective Currents to form which increase the efficiency that would otherwise create stratified temperatures rather than the Weather Cells we commonly see. Convection is ALWAYS more efficient than Radiation under the same conditions and within the same thermo system. Since nature is always using the most efficient means to transfer energy (entropy), any radiation, so-called ‘trapped’ will immediately use Convection as a means for escape. The reason Convection stops at the Tropopause is that Convection only transfers heat from Hotter to Cooler regions. The Temperature gradient reverses at the tropopause meaning the atmosphere gets warmer as altitude increases to the top of the Stratosphere. Since convection can only move from hotter to colder regions, it cannot move energy from a region that averages -56 C to a region that is -55 C. Your question obviously means you have no means by which to test either a yes or no answer. Why did you ask the question?

Well I don’t claim to be a scientist, never did. So I leave all scientific judgements to scientists and when a simple Google search can tell me that there are around 200 peer reviewed studies that say climate change is real and cause by human activities, but not one that refutes them; I tend to go with that rather than pretend to be something I’m not.

theendisfar said:
:) This is entertaining. Thank you James :) While you may think lowly of a Marine Biologist’s understanding of Natural Laws, you show your complete contempt for Science by disregarding a Physicist’s understanding.

Never said that, you’re disshonestly putting words in my mouth. How sad for you that you have to resort to such a tactic. But I guess when you don’t have the truth on your side…

Anyway I think that the science of climate change is best left to climate scientists while the science of Marine Biology is best left to Marine Biologists and the science of physics is best left to Physicists. I respect the views of scientists in their respective field of science.

JamesA1102 said:
I respect the views of scientists in their respective field of science.

You are too ignorant to have respect for the views of a scientist, any scientist. Seriously. Your understanding of science and what it means to be a scientist is so limited that I doubt your level is that of a 5th grader. I used 5th grade because that was the beginning of my use of the Scientific Method.

Example:

JamesA1102 said:
Could have fooled me.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/wikileaks-nominated-for-the-nobel-peace-prize/comment-page-2/#comment-307672

Oddly enough I thought you may have seen the original thread from which I did copy and paste, then a few modifications. The fact that you were fooled makes complete sense given your responses and types questions you ask.

JamesA1102 said:
Really? Where did you get your degree in climatology?

Like this one. Does one have to have a degree in Mathematics to do mathematics? To be a Mathematician? How about music? Do you have to have a degree in Music to be a Musician? I can tell you right now that I’m reading your mind. You are puzzled and angry that someone is suggesting that they are a Climatologist without having a degree in Climatology and that is precisely what I am stating as a fact.

Your only response is that “Well you have no degree”. That’s it. You could not even begin to fathom whether one word I have written is true or not because your faculties for deriving truth have no evidence of being developed at all. There is such a thing as stupid questions and the joke is that those who tell you there are not are secretly laughing at you.

JamesA1102 said:
Have any of them been peer reviewed?

I’m pleased to share with you what I’ve written on this subject and others as well if you like, but You have to share something with me too. Your Peer Review.

JamesA1102 said:
By whom??? Name the scientific authority that has done so with any of the over 200 peer reviewed study on global climate change. You just don’t like the results because of your ideology.

LOL, you want the group that perpetuated the fraud to write and review papers admitting to the fraud? You are too funny. You forget our conversation started with the scientific community ostracizing many of its members who have dissenting views and how that puts all of those papers into the realm of being of no value. All are suspect due mostly to the fact they could not stand up to their own projections. Then errors after they were supposedly peer reviewed came out as well as documents proving collusion and fraud. Then large . . . Never mind the list is too long and you don’t care your mind is closed.

JamesA1102 said:
Well I don’t claim to be a scientist, never did. So I leave all scientific judgements to scientists and when a simple Google search can tell me that there are around 200 peer reviewed studies that say climate change is real and cause by human activities, but not one that refutes them; I tend to go with that rather than pretend to be something I’m not.

Oh, a googlist. Can you please tell me how useful it is to not understand that which you ‘tend to go with’? :) You should really understand that which you tend to go with. You may as well be an abused alter boy that says 200 priests say nothing is out of the ordinary and not one of them disagreed. Really? Not even one of them?

Check out http://endisfar.com, in the blog I’ve written several pieces, but there is an error in one of the Global Warming articles. If you can find it, we’ll figure out some sort of prize for you. Your first Peer Review where you’re not simply parroting another’s efforts.

JamesA1102 said:
Never said that, you’re disshonestly putting words in my mouth. How sad for you that you have to resort to such a tactic. But I guess when you don’t have the truth on your side…

What is truly sad is that you have not a clue, at all, that a biologist’s understanding of Natural Laws is very sufficient to understand heat transfer and convective properties. What is truly amazing is that you included the dismissal of a physicist as if a climatologist has anything to stack up against that discipline.

In any event, you have access to my work and I’ve even given you a hint of where you can look to Falsify my work personally. Won’t it feel so much better being able to tell your friends that you didn’t have to tend to go with someone you don’t know and instead formulated something on your own?

Take your time, peers are open to being judged too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/fox-news-posts-request-fo_n_818382.html

Reliable forecast under the weather
By Michael Graham | Thursday, February 3, 2011 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Op-Ed
Meet the global weirdos. They’re the ones telling you that all the snow outside is proof that it’s getting warmer. Only, they don’t call it “warming” anymore.

No, that was back in the “Earth has a fever” days. Back when Al Gore was predicting that the ice caps were melting, the polar bears were drowning and Manhattan would sink beneath 20 feet of water “in the near future.”

But then something happened. Since 1998, temperatures have been relatively flat. We’ve got more polar bears than ever, and Manhattan is buried under snow. For a planet-roasting crisis that threatened the human race with extinction, there doesn’t seem to be much actual warming.

So then the mantra became “climate change.” The liberals formerly known as “warmists” began predicting that we would experience fundamental changes in our weather. Scientists at the University of East Anglia — the Harvard of climate change — said snow would be “a very rare and exciting event.” Children wouldn’t know what it was.

As for summers, in the wake of Katrina “change-ist” groups like realclimate.org predicted “global warming will make hurricanes even worse in the future.”

What happened? Nothing. Europe has had three winters in a row of snow and cold temperatures. In the Atlantic, “there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of hurricanes in the last five years,” according to meteorologist Art Horn. “The total energy in all hurricanes around the world has plunged since 1993. The opposite of what was predicted.”

So the new fall back is “global weirding.” The site thedailygreen.com has a “Weird Weather Watch” page. The uber-liberal Huffington Post ran a story in August headlined “Global Weirding”: Extreme Climate Events Dominate The Summer.”

“The extreme climate events all across the globe must say something about whether climate change is already upon us,” the HuffPo insisted. “Extreme is the new normal.”

They quote a professor of “environmental studies and politics” from Oberlin College who says, “More hottest hots, driest dries, wettest wets, windiest wind conditions. So it’s all part of a pattern.”

Gore is on board, too. He’s now merely claiming rising temperatures will “create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters.”

Not “warming,” but “weirding.” Not “heating,” but “havoc.” Which is how global warming can cause more snow, less snow, no snow, avalanches, heat waves, cold snaps, wetter wets, drier dries, gingivitis, delirium tremens and irritable bowel syndrome  . . . all at the same time!

Global warming — is there anything it can’t do?

Well, the one thing it apparently doesn’t do is help predict the weather. The UK’s Met Office stopped giving seasonal forecasts last year after mis-predicting warmer winters three years in a row. Meteorologists without a warmist agenda like Piers Corbyn and AccuWeather’s Joe Bastardi, on the other hand, continue to pay the bills by making predictions directly contrary to the “weirdos.” Oddly, they don’t have degrees in politics.

For a theory to be scientific, it must be fallible — capable of being proven false. If every weather condition can be used to “prove” global warming simply by being declared “weird,” then it’s not science. It’s a joke.

Which is exactly what the environmental movement has become.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1314036

theendisfar said:
You are too ignorant to have respect for the views of a scientist, any scientist. Seriously. Your understanding of science and what it means to be a scientist is so limited that I doubt your level is that of a 5th grader. I used 5th grade because that was the beginning of my use of the Scientific Method.

Wow! Thanks! I always know that I’m winning the argument when the other side resorts to cheap insults.

theendisfar said:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/wikileaks-nominated-for-the-nobel-peace-prize/comment-page-2/#comment-307672

LOL!!!! I love people who quote themselves and think that proves something! LMAO!!!

theendisfar said:
Like this one. Does one have to have a degree in Mathematics to do mathematics? To be a Mathematician? How about music? Do you have to have a degree in Music to be a Musician?

Does a one have to have a degree in Medicine to preform surgery??? By your logic, no. And I would bet that you wouldn’t be volunteering to have that operation. But what a wild and wacky world that would where anyone could call themselves anything without having to do the learning, hard work or training to become a doctor or a dentist or police officer or a climatologist.

theendisfar said:
I can tell you right now that I’m reading your mind. You are puzzled and angry that someone is suggesting that they are a Climatologist without having a degree in Climatology and that is precisely what I am stating as a fact.

Well I see that your not a climatologist or a mind reader bacause I’m not puzzled or sad. Rather I’m thinking how pathetic it is that someone would claim to be something they are not because they are so driven by their blind ideology.

theendisfar said:
Your only response is that “Well you have no degree”. That’s it.

So I guess that is an admission that you have no degree in climate science.

theendisfar said:
You could not even begin to fathom whether one word I have written is true or not because your faculties for deriving truth have no evidence of being developed at all. There is such a thing as stupid questions and the joke is that those who tell you there are not are secretly laughing at you.

Well, unlike you I don’t claim to be a scientist when I am not. Therefore I look to actual scientists and the peer review process.

theendisfar said:
I’m pleased to share with you what I’ve written on this subject and others as well if you like, but You have to share something with me too. Your Peer Review.

I could care less about what you’ve written on the subject. If you’ve written a peer reviewed study that disprove what the other 200 have shown, then it would have some merit. Otherwise it is just delusions.

Cali said:
LOL, you want the group that perpetuated the fraud to write and review papers admitting to the fraud? You are too funny. You forget our conversation started with the scientific community ostracizing many of its members who have dissenting views and how that puts all of those papers into the realm of being of no value. All are suspect due mostly to the fact they could not stand up to their own projections. Then errors after they were supposedly peer reviewed came out as well as documents proving collusion and fraud. Then large . . . Never mind the list is too long and you don’t care your mind is closed.

My mind is not closed. If there are peer reviewed studies that disprove global climate change, please present them. Rather it is your mind that is closed because you refuse to accept the finding of around 200 peer reviewed studies because you are blinded by your ideology.

CosmosDan said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/fox-news-posts-request-fo_n_818382.html

Great link Dan!!!!

theendisfar said:
Oh, a googlist. Can you please tell me how useful it is to not understand that which you ‘tend to go with’? :) You should really understand that which you tend to go with. You may as well be an abused alter boy that says 200 priests say nothing is out of the ordinary and not one of them disagreed. Really? Not even one of them?

Wow! Totally false analogy. You’re really getting desperate.

theendisfar said:
Check out http://endisfar.com, in the blog I’ve written several pieces, but there is an error in one of the Global Warming articles. If you can find it, we’ll figure out some sort of prize for you. Your first Peer Review where you’re not simply parroting another’s efforts.

How would I know what the error is? I’m not a scientist and never claimed to be. But one thing I do know about is the peer review process and from your comments, I’m beginning to see that you don’t know a thing about it.

theendisfar said:
What is truly sad is that you have not a clue, at all, that a biologist’s understanding of Natural Laws is very sufficient to understand heat transfer and convective properties. What is truly amazing is that you included the dismissal of a physicist as if a climatologist has anything to stack up against that discipline.

No I have a clue to what a biologist’s or physicist’s field of expertise is and its not in climate science.

theendisfar said:
In any event, you have access to my work and I’ve even given you a hint of where you can look to Falsify my work personally. Won’t it feel so much better being able to tell your friends that you didn’t have to tend to go with someone you don’t know and instead formulated something on your own?

Formulate something in my own??? I’m not a scientist and never claimed to be. I’m not delusional. Nor do I have interest in the rantings of someone who is not a scientist and is more driven by their ideology than in any real understanding of climate science.

CosmosDan said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/fox-news-posts-request-fo_n_818382.html

Thanks CosmosDan, while I missed the deadline, it is encouraging that the MSM is renewing interest in the greatest scam of all time. Besides the Federal Reserve System of course.

gordonbloyershow said:
For a theory to be scientific, it must be fallible — capable of being proven false.

Right you are! The problem with AGW is that it is Not a Theory. It is a sliding hypothesis carefully manipulated by those that are seeking profit. Profit in it thet most general definition meaning some just seek to be accepted by fellow believers. Others like the Charlatan Al Gore are very rich and younger wives.

The cat is out of the bag and we may as well sink the AGW ship along with the Socialist one at the same time. The AGW priests are nothing more than Central Planners for the Energy and, newly created, Environment markets.

They aim to form a Monopoly over all material goods and labor. They have already shown how easy it is to monopolize thought. Take James for example. He doesn’t need to think for himself, he can Google and ignore that which he is told to ignore.

JamesA1102 said:
Wow! Thanks! I always know that I’m winning the argument when the other side resorts to cheap insults.

You have yet to enter the argument :) What you are obviously missing is that you have no argument other than hearsay that you have no tools to measure. I’m certainly not surprised that someone of your limited faculty does not recognize that the difference between arguing and parroting. This is quite a common event.

Of course the insult is cheap, it required very little effort to determine that you are a Gubment Educated Anthropogenic Myrmidon (GEAM). This insult is not just for you, but for all GEAMs.

JamesA1102 said:
LOL!!!! I love people who quote themselves and think that proves something! LMAO!!!

Yet you still have no means to test my accuracy. But hey, everybody gets a trophy for showing up.

JamesA1102 said:
But what a wild and wacky world that would where anyone could call themselves anything without having to do the learning, hard work or training to become a doctor or a dentist or police officer or a climatologist.

Now this is truly where the difference lies in people of ability and those that are domesticated. You’re understanding is that one must be brought knowledge instead of being able to seek it yourself. No wonder for a GEAM. I took several physics, chemistry, and biology courses while at university and studied those and other courses on my own as well.

Now did I go into climatology for a career? No. However, once climatologists, people who make a living from doomsday prophecy, started making wild claims, I decided to put their claims to the TEST, myself. This was well over ten years ago. I know it is much easier to pick a side and start shouting with and then for them, but I get a kick out of knowing things for myself.

So building from my coursework and experience in physics, I began my efforts to test their claims, but there was a problem. They never actually made any claims. It was always something subjective like likely, highly likely, almost, adjusted, averaged, and then they started averaging adjustments and visa-versa and soon it became evident that not only were these ‘climatologists’ not testing their work prior to publishing, they fought feverishly to keep skeptics from testing it. This is not science, it is religion.

My personal breakthrough came recently when I decided to look at the problem on my own and discovered a deep flaw in the Greenhouse Effect, firstly it does not behave at all like a greenhouse, and when you look at how a greenhouse operates it works by PREVENTING convection. Convection as it turns out is wildly more efficient at moving energy than radiation. If you trap some radiation, then convection immediately fills the role of heat transfer.

This makes no sense to you and that is my point. You can agree with another, but you have no means to verify your agreement other than FAITH.

JamesA1102 said:
Formulate something in my own???

What more need be said.

theendisfar said:
You have yet to enter the argument :) What you are obviously missing is that you have no argument other than hearsay that you have no tools to measure. I’m certainly not surprised that someone of your limited faculty does not recognize that the difference between arguing and parroting. This is quite a common event.

My argument is that there are about 200 peer reviewed scientific studies that have found global climate change is real and caused by man and not one that refutes those findings. That is not parroting but merely stating a fact. And even someone of my so-called ‘limited faculty’ has to acknowledge facts. Why can’t you?

theendisfar said:
Of course the insult is cheap, it required very little effort to determine that you are a Gubment Educated Anthropogenic Myrmidon (GEAM). This insult is not just for you, but for all GEAMs.

Thanks again for confirming that I’m winning the argument.

theendisfar said:
Yet you still have no means to test my accuracy. But hey, everybody gets a trophy for showing up.

Yes there is a means to test your accuracy. It’s call the peer review process. So when you have a peer reviewed study that refutes the finds of the other 200 hundred, then you might have something to say that is worth paying attention too.

theendisfar said:
Now this is truly where the difference lies in people of ability and those that are domesticated.

No there is turly a difference betwween people of ability who go to school to get a degree in a particular area of expertise and those who have delusions making false claims to titles that they have no right to.

theendisfar said:
This is not science, it is religion.

And the way to determine what is really science, versus religion or ideology, is the peer review process.

theendisfar said:
This makes no sense to you and that is my point. You can agree with another, but you have no means to verify your agreement other than FAITH.

Yes faith in the established peer review process versus the rantings of someone on the internet who is obviously more driven by blind ideology than anything else.

JamesA1102 said:
My argument is that there are about 200 peer reviewed scientific studies that have found global climate change is real and caused by man and not one that refutes those findings.

There are plenty rebuttals to these half ass ‘studies’, but what you do not see is any scientific response from the believers. Unless you count “There are countless peer review studies confirming our beliefs!” as a response. That’s what we get, it’s not a scientific response. We can’t even get them to supply their methods to see if we can match their results.

Why? Because they have millions of GEAM’s who support them because of their credentials and associations and not a one of you has any means to test their credentials and it seems that your ability to even question their credentials has been rendered impotent. Not only have you lost your ability to question, you ostracize the very people capable of questioning then in your place. Understandable. You fit in, I get it.

JamesA1102 said:
Thanks again for confirming that I’m winning the argument.

Awesome :) This is why you NEVER allow the government to educate your children alone. YOU must teach your children critical thinking methodologies because the Gubment has abandoned them.

You are arguing that the studies that you refer to are verified when you have no means to verify them :) I’ve offered some very specific statements and you have no clue whether they are relevant or not. Why exchange with you? Because you are doing a very good job of proving my point. You see, you are following the exact same script that your climatologists wrote for themselves.

DO NOT DEFEND YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF CLIMATE SCIENCE, DEFEND ONLY THAT WHICH YOU CAN REFER TO.

JamesA1102 said:
Yes there is a means to test your accuracy. It’s call the peer review process. So when you have a peer reviewed study that refutes the finds of the other 200 hundred, then you might have something to say that is worth paying attention too

These Charlatans don’t dare Peer Review work on Convection. It automatically sets them up to answer questions about their own work that AGW cannot afford to have answered. Convection is the end of AGW, literally.

JamesA1102 said:
No there is turly a difference betwween people of ability who go to school to get a degree in a particular area of expertise and those who have delusions making false claims to titles that they have no right to.

You know titles come in all sorts of degrees, pun intended. I am a climatologist in that I study the mid and long term phenomenon called climate. Your statement applies to EVERY climatologist who ‘studies’ climate while ignoring or abrogating the role of convection in cooling the Earth’s surface. Take my word for it, or not, but that is all you can do.

JamesA1102 said:
And the way to determine what is really science, versus religion or ideology, is the peer review process.

Nope. To someone who has little to no understanding; Peer Review = The Scientific Method, but Peer Review is really only a step in the process, and is the only Step that is discretionary. Peer Review’s primary purpose is an objective (someone else does it) test of the Theory that you have already been unsuccessful at falsifying. If your trusted colleague is unable to falsify it, and they have tested it rigorously, then it is probably safe to publish without someone else coming along and destroying all your hard work.

Validation can only come from those most eager and apt to falsify your work. If THEY can’t falsify your work, then it only makes your argument more sound. The AGW crowd should be begging to have their work critiqued by their most ardent skeptics.

What you think is Peer Review is not an attempt to falsify at all, it is an attempt to agree which takes no effort whatsoever as you are an example. You don’t give yourself enough credit, YOU are part of the Climate Peer Review Process too. Congratulations, you can give yourself a Title.

JamesA1102 said:
Yes faith in the established peer review process versus the rantings of someone on the internet who is obviously more driven by blind ideology than anything else.

A process that you have no understanding of, certainly the definition of Faith

Me Blind? :) I can see a great deal of the road before me, you have to ask your bus driver what it looks like from behind a big green seat. Probably have to go through a couple intermediaries that ends up a game of ‘Grapevine’.

You heard it through the Grapevine . . .

theendisfar said:
Right you are! The problem with AGW is that it is Not a Theory. It is a sliding hypothesis carefully manipulated by those that are seeking profit.

Seems like a better alternative than starting a war.

CosmosDan said:
Seems like a better alternative than starting a war.

Not sure what you mean? A war amongst believers and skeptics?

If the choice is between having our lives monopolized by Central Planners of our energy, education, environment, economy, and just about everything else, I absolutely without reservation advocate war over domestication of the human species.

Any Human who chooses domestication over war is not really a human are they? Biologically speaking yes, but one who can Reason? Is this an animal farm? Feeding time! Work time! Sleep time! Wake up! Feeding time! and so on.

War is absolutely avoidable, as long as domestication is.

theendisfar said:
There are plenty rebuttals to these half ass ’studies’, but what you do not see is any scientific response from the believers. Unless you count “There are countless peer review studies confirming our beliefs!” as a response. That’s what we get, it’s not a scientific response. We can’t even get them to supply their methods to see if we can match their results.

No it is not a scientific response, it is a factual one. The scientific response is the 200 peer reviewed studies that confirm that global climate change is real and man made.

And BTW peer review is all about methods being reviewed and results being matched, so when you make a statement like the one above; you’re just highlighting your ignorance.

theendisfar said:
Why? Because they have millions of GEAM’s who support them because of their credentials and associations and not a one of you has any means to test their credentials and it seems that your ability to even question their credentials has been rendered impotent. Not only have you lost your ability to question, you ostracize the very people capable of questioning then in your place. Understandable. You fit in, I get it.

No because they have many other scientists who review their science, procedures and conclusions. That’s called a peer review.

theendisfar said:
Awesome :) This is why you NEVER allow the government to educate your children alone. YOU must teach your children critical thinking methodologies because the Gubment has abandoned them.

At least they teach spelling. Guess you were out that day.

theendisfar said:
You are arguing that the studies that you refer to are verified when you have no means to verify them :) I’ve offered some very specific statements and you have no clue whether they are relevant or not. Why exchange with you? Because you are doing a very good job of proving my point. You see, you are following the exact same script that your climatologists wrote for themselves.

I’ve never claimed to be a climatologist. I’m not delusional. Just as I don’t pretend to be a lawyer or a doctor or even an accountant. When I want information or advice in those fields, I go to those who have spent years putting in the hard work getting a degree in those fields. That’s called dealing with reality and not jumping on the internet to make wild claims, pretending to be something that I’m not.

theendisfar said:
DO NOT DEFEND YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF CLIMATE SCIENCE, DEFEND ONLY THAT WHICH YOU CAN REFER TO.

I never claimed an understanding of climate science. I leave that to the experts, climatologists, REAL climatologists. You know, ones who do REAL scientific studies that are peer reviewed.

theendisfar said:
These Charlatans don’t dare Peer Review work on Convection. It automatically sets them up to answer questions about their own work that AGW cannot afford to have answered. Convection is the end of AGW, literally.

What work on Convection? What studies? By whom? Or maybe they have peer reviewed these studies and they didn’t pass muster.

theendisfar said:
You know titles come in all sorts of degrees, pun intended. I am a climatologist in that I study the mid and long term phenomenon called climate. Your statement applies to EVERY climatologist who ’studies’ climate while ignoring or abrogating the role of convection in cooling the Earth’s surface. Take my word for it, or not, but that is all you can do.

Please, you’ve admitted that you don’t have a degree in climate science. You are not a climatologist. Stop deluding yourself.

theendisfar said:
Nope. To someone who has little to no understanding; Peer Review = The Scientific Method, but Peer Review is really only a step in the process, and is the only Step that is discretionary. Peer Review’s primary purpose is an objective (someone else does it) test of the Theory that you have already been unsuccessful at falsifying. If your trusted colleague is unable to falsify it, and they have tested it rigorously, then it is probably safe to publish without someone else coming along and destroying all your hard work. Validation can only come from those most eager and apt to falsify your work. If THEY can’t falsify your work, then it only makes your argument more sound. The AGW crowd should be begging to have their work critiqued by their most ardent skeptics. What you think is Peer Review is not an attempt to falsify at all, it is an attempt to agree which takes no effort whatsoever as you are an example. You don’t give yourself enough credit, YOU are part of the Climate Peer Review Process too. Congratulations, you can give yourself a Title.

No I’m not part of the Peer Review process and I don’t rate a title. I’m realistic like that, not delusional. But I do know that the Peer Review process is very skeptical. It questions everything from the initial science to the methodology to the results of all experiments to the final conclusions; and not just once but over and over again. But from you’re rant above it is now really obvious that you haven’t a single clue about it or are just distorting the truth because it doesn’t fit your ideology.

theendisfar said:
Me Blind? :) I can see a great deal of the road before me, you have to ask your bus driver what it looks like from behind a big green seat. Probably have to go through a couple intermediaries that ends up a game of ‘Grapevine’. You heard it through the Grapevine . . .

Wow, now you’re just getting incoherent.

JamesA1102 said:
And BTW peer review is all about methods being reviewed and results being matched, so when you make a statement like the one above; you’re just highlighting your ignorance.

Peer Review is NOT the final step in the Scientific Method, it is the step before you Publish.

Critical Review is the last step and it is repeated as often as any skeptic cares to repeat it. What I am saying is that if these Climate Studies are being Peer Reviewed successfully, meaning the Peer rigorously attempted to Falsify the Hypothesis, then the next step is to give those methods and data to the most ardent skeptic for them to repeat. If it is a good theory, then the skeptic will not be able to falsify it and that will make the theory even more sound.

You don’t proofread you own work. That is the point of Peer Review. But make no mistake, the Peer Review is just a step to allow someone else to check you work before anyone has a chance to Critically Review it.

Think of a test. You can get a friend to check your answers before you turn it in. You choose your smartest friend. But you don’t get to have your friend give you the grade. That is the Skeptics job.

JamesA1102 said:
I never claimed an understanding of climate science. I leave that to the experts, climatologists, REAL climatologists. You know, ones who do REAL scientific studies that are peer reviewed.

So who are you to verify someone as a climatologist? I’ve worked with several people who had degrees but no ability. You honestly think Peer Review is a replacement for The Scientific Method which via all its steps is a Critical Review.

JamesA1102 said:
What work on Convection? What studies? By whom? Or maybe they have peer reviewed these studies and they didn’t pass muster.

Precisely! What work? Convection is the most efficient means by which to transfer heat where available and it is largely abrogated in Climate Study. Again, Convection is described using Highly likely, almost, adjusted, averaged, and adjusted averages when included. When we ask for details, what do we get? “Well, the IPCC model is of course a simple representation. After all climate is very chaotic and we don’t have multiple Earth’s to test on.”

It never gets to a point of Critical Review because your masters refuse to address it by continuously tweaking the models and changing the yard sticks. No Peer Review, no methods, no data; this does not allow one to repeat the tests.

But you’ve led me to a possible way to pin these Charlatans down. Thanks :)

JamesA1102 said:
Please, you’ve admitted that you don’t have a degree in climate science

Hello? I’ve already admitted as such. I do so again. However, and you won’t understand this, my education in physics is more than enough to check the work of climatologists. Climate must also obey the Laws of the Physics, and I have particular experience in Thermodynamics.

JamesA1102 said:
No I’m not part of the Peer Review process and I don’t rate a title

Suit yourself! I offered you that title simply because your exclamation that other people have solved the riddle and refer to some studies is EXACTLY how the Climatologists Peer Review EACH OTHER’S work. Why should you not be in league with them if you’re practicing their craft at their level?

JamesA1102 said:
But I do know that the Peer Review process is very skeptical.

In what sense? If it was doing its job then the authors of the studies would GIVE US THEIR WORK to TEST. Hell it’s been tested and tested and tested over and over again. When you can’t get the methods from those that do the Peer Review because the Peer’s are not given permission to share it, a skeptic automatically calls BS.

Not you of course, you have Faith. You best not call BS, it is a sin you know.

JamesA1102 said:
Wow, now you’re just getting incoherent.

Not too hard of a metaphor. You’re not able to understand the science so you must take the word of someone else. You’re not driving. Sure you trust them, but you have no idea if what they are describing to you is accurate or not.

Grapevine may be before your time. Line up 20 school kids and give the first a message and tell him/her to repeat the message to the next kid, and so on. By the time the last kid gets the message, it is nothing like the original.

Now try to repeat these process accurately without the kids’ cooperation.

That is Climate Science in a nutshell. This has been quite fruitful for me James, it has been a pleasure exchanging with an AGW’er so forthcoming. Your brothers and sisters usually clam up, and while believers like you are beyond reach, this exchange has given me some insight into how to get others to recognize you all and your methods quickly.

And don’t get me wrong, I feel passionately that you are free and unfettered to allow others to think and plan for you, but just as passionately that I am free and unfettered from it.

Have a great weekend!

theendisfar said:
Peer Review is NOT the final step in the Scientific Method, it is the step before you Publish.

Never said it was. Again you dishonestly put words in my mouth.

theendisfar said:
Critical Review is the last step and it is repeated as often as any skeptic cares to repeat it. What I am saying is that if these Climate Studies are being Peer Reviewed successfully, meaning the Peer rigorously attempted to Falsify the Hypothesis, then the next step is to give those methods and data to the most ardent skeptic for them to repeat. If it is a good theory, then the skeptic will not be able to falsify it and that will make the theory even more sound.

Now you’re just making things up. There is no “Critical Review” stage, at least none that is recognized by the Scientific or Academic community. The results of a peer reviewed study can be refuted but by another peer reviewed study. However, there still isn’t one peer reviewed study that refutes the findings of the 200 that found that global climate change is real and man made. You just don’t like those finding due to your blind ideology so you’re making up this mumbo-jumbo.

theendisfar said:
You don’t proofread you own work. That is the point of Peer Review. But make no mistake, the Peer Review is just a step to allow someone else to check you work before anyone has a chance to Critically Review it. Think of a test. You can get a friend to check your answers before you turn it in. You choose your smartest friend. But you don’t get to have your friend give you the grade. That is the Skeptics job.

Peer Review is not someone proof reading your work. You’re just showing your total ignorance of the peer reviewed process.

theendisfar said:
So who are you to verify someone as a climatologist? I’ve worked with several people who had degrees but no ability. You honestly think Peer Review is a replacement for The Scientific Method which via all its steps is a Critical Review.

Wow! So much delusion in so few sentances. If someone is a climatologist, they should have at least a proper degree and be employed as such. Calling yourself a climatologist when you’re really an unemployed consultant, doesn’t make you a climatologist.

And Peer Review is The Scientific Method if you really knew what you were talking about instead of making things up like “Critical Review”.

theendisfar said:
Precisely! What work? Convection is the most efficient means by which to transfer heat where available and it is largely abrogated in Climate Study. Again, Convection is described using Highly likely, almost, adjusted, averaged, and adjusted averages when included. When we ask for details, what do we get? “Well, the IPCC model is of course a simple representation. After all climate is very chaotic and we don’t have multiple Earth’s to test on.” It never gets to a point of Critical Review because your masters refuse to address it by continuously tweaking the models and changing the yard sticks. No Peer Review, no methods, no data; this does not allow one to repeat the tests. But you’ve led me to a possible way to pin these Charlatans down. Thanks :)

So the whole scientific and acedemic community is wrong? Maybe there is no peer reviewed studies on convection because it doesn’t pass muster scientifically.

theendisfar said:
Hello? I’ve already admitted as such. I do so again. However, and you won’t understand this, my education in physics is more than enough to check the work of climatologists. Climate must also obey the Laws of the Physics, and I have particular experience in Thermodynamics.

So now you’re claiming that you’re a Physicist? Really? Where did you get your degree and what kind of degree? Where are you employed as a Physicist?

theendisfar said:
Suit yourself! I offered you that title simply because your exclamation that other people have solved the riddle and refer to some studies is EXACTLY how the Climatologists Peer Review EACH OTHER’S work. Why should you not be in league with them if you’re practicing their craft at their level?

See that is the difference between you and me. I prefer reality and don’t myself titles that I don’t rate by education and experience.

theendisfar said:
In what sense? If it was doing its job then the authors of the studies would GIVE US THEIR WORK to TEST. Hell it’s been tested and tested and tested over and over again. When you can’t get the methods from those that do the Peer Review because the Peer’s are not given permission to share it, a skeptic automatically calls BS. Not you of course, you have Faith. You best not call BS, it is a sin you know.

The only BS is that you don’t like the results of 200 peer reviewed studies because of your blind ideology. If you had a clue about the peer reviewed process, you would know that a very skeptical approach is taken.

theendisfar said:
Not too hard of a metaphor. You’re not able to understand the science so you must take the word of someone else. You’re not driving. Sure you trust them, but you have no idea if what they are describing to you is accurate or not.

Please it was a nonsensical metaphor.

theendisfar said:
Grapevine may be before your time. Line up 20 school kids and give the first a message and tell him/her to repeat the message to the next kid, and so on. By the time the last kid gets the message, it is nothing like the original. Now try to repeat these process accurately without the kids’ cooperation. That is Climate Science in a nutshell. This has been quite fruitful for me James, it has been a pleasure exchanging with an AGW’er so forthcoming. Your brothers and sisters usually clam up, and while believers like you are beyond reach, this exchange has given me some insight into how to get others to recognize you all and your methods quickly.

Wow! Again you totally misrepresent over 40 years of climate science. And I’m not a believer. I simply accept the truth. To quote Michael Eric Dyson, “Science is still true whether you believe in it or not”.

theendisfar said:
And don’t get me wrong, I feel passionately that you are free and unfettered to allow others to think and plan for you, but just as passionately that I am free and unfettered from it. Have a great weekend!

The only thing that I’m free and unfettered from is delusion. I stick to reality. Buh-bye!

JamesA1102 said:
Never said it was. Again you dishonestly put words in my mouth.

Quickly before I go out and experience some of this “climate change’, yesterday was weather because it was cold and today it is climate change because it will be warmer, but next week we have more weather coming :) and so on. Better enjoy the Climate Change while it lasts.

I did not dishonestly put any words in your mouth, CLIMATOLOGISTS are responsible for that. You say that since their work has been Peer Reviewed, by themselves mind you, that this verifies their work. To the lay and lazy this seems like a perfectly reasonable declaration of verification. But it is far from it.

What I am declaring is that the People Peer Reviewing the Climatologist’s ‘studies’ are not verifying the existence of AGW, but rather verifying that a colleague ‘says’ they have verified evidence that might lead one to believe the existence of AGW.

No one is verifying AGW, they are only verifying that someone else said they sort of verified it. You are doing the EXACT same thing which clearly shows that you are Peer Reviewing Climate Studies. You are supposing that I am attempting to lift your status by equating you with Climate Peer Reviewers, but I am actually reducing their status by equating them with you. You are all a bunch of Rubber Stamps.

That is part of the idea you inadvertently helped form. These climate charlatans value their Titles far more than their Methods. By showing that their methods are readily and commonly repeated by millions of GEAMs, we can show that there is no value in them at all.

JamesA1102 said:
Calling yourself a climatologist when you’re really an unemployed consultant, doesn’t make you a climatologist.

Did you read ‘Liberal Irony’ too? http://wp.me/pB8xR-6T Interesting how people who cannot truly claim to be Liberals have hijacked the term to describe themselves. Change the meaning, and you can make any word mean its opposite. Peer Review has been bastardized in similar fashion.

A climatologist is someone who studies climate. I study climate, therefor I am. I am also a Physicist. I am also a Mathematician, I am also a Musician, and so on. You study nothing, at least you have provided no evidence as such, so it is very reasonable that you would claim no such titles.

I recognize that you dismiss my understanding of all my fields of study because your litmus test for expertise is confined to a Degree. My education in critical thinking and the broad exercise of that education upon many disciplines allows me to quickly learn new ones. See that is what critical thinking is at its heart, the ability to teach yourself how to learn.

But can YOU be a true judge when you have no understanding? YES, you can, but only a half ass one, in name only. You engage in Peer Review, half ass mind you, but you do it according to the Climate Religion, which is half ass itself. It is not your efforts that lack, it is your set of TOOLS, well lack of.

JamesA1102 said:
So the whole scientific and acedemic community is wrong?

:) Of course not, just those that believe that Climate Change is a result of increasing greenhouse gases. Yes, I know there are 200 Peer Reviewed Studies and not one has been refuted. Problem is that we skeptics have played into the believers’ hands by attempting to refute their work without them giving it to us. Proving negatives is quite difficult and impossible in many/most cases.

What we can do though is show, with the methods/data they have made available, is that they have no F’ing clue whether Climate Change is natural or anthropogenic.

JamesA1102 said:
See that is the difference between you and me. I prefer reality and don’t myself titles that I don’t rate by education and experience.

JamesA1102 said:
So now you’re claiming that you’re a Physicist? Really? Where did you get your degree and what kind of degree? Where are you employed as a Physicist?

See above.

JamesA1102 said:
The only BS is that you don’t like the results of 200 peer reviewed studies because of your blind ideology. If you had a clue about the peer reviewed process, you would know that a very skeptical approach is taken.

The only results that they have offered is that their colleagues have stated something. They will not give us the methods, we must take their word for it. BS! Perhaps you can get their methods from them for us?

JamesA1102 said:
And I’m not a believer. I simply accept the truth

How can YOU tell what is true or not? :) You haven’t the faculties to do so :) You must accept someone else’s explanation. Can you test it? No. Can you question it? No, they could give you any answer they pleased.

While you shrug off the honor of being a Peer Reviewer for the Climate Industry, it is not for you to decide whether you are or not. You perform the same function, there for you are by proxy. JamesA1102 “Climate Peer Review-ologist 1st Degree”! Fancy.

I must thank you again. It is not very often one gets to ‘peer’ into the mind of someone so domesticated. You’re certainly welcome to the last word, however I will most definitely have some questions. Fascinating.

theendisfar said:
Quickly before I go out and experience some of this “climate change’, yesterday was weather because it was cold and today it is climate change because it will be warmer, but next week we have more weather coming :) and so on. Better enjoy the Climate Change while it lasts.

Nonsensical drivel as usual.

theendisfar said:
I did not dishonestly put any words in your mouth, CLIMATOLOGISTS are responsible for that. You say that since their work has been Peer Reviewed, by themselves mind you, that this verifies their work. To the lay and lazy this seems like a perfectly reasonable declaration of verification. But it is far from it.

No it was you since there are no REAL climatologists posting on this thread.

And yet again you misrepresent the peer review process because you don’t like the results due to your blind ideology.

theendisfar said:
What I am declaring is that the People Peer Reviewing the Climatologist’s ’studies’ are not verifying the existence of AGW, but rather verifying that a colleague ’says’ they have verified evidence that might lead one to believe the existence of AGW.

And what standing in the scientific and academic community do you have to make that declaration?

theendisfar said:
No one is verifying AGW, they are only verifying that someone else said they sort of verified it. You are doing the EXACT same thing which clearly shows that you are Peer Reviewing Climate Studies. You are supposing that I am attempting to lift your status by equating you with Climate Peer Reviewers, but I am actually reducing their status by equating them with you. You are all a bunch of Rubber Stamps. That is part of the idea you inadvertently helped form. These climate charlatans value their Titles far more than their Methods. By showing that their methods are readily and commonly repeated by millions of GEAMs, we can show that there is no value in them at all.

Actually they are being verified by other peer reviewed studies. There are around 200 of them that all say the same thing and not one that refutes them.

theendisfar said:
Did you read ‘Liberal Irony’ too? http://wp.me/pB8xR-6T Interesting how people who cannot truly claim to be Liberals have hijacked the term to describe themselves. Change the meaning, and you can make any word mean its opposite. Peer Review has been bastardized in similar fashion.

Yes I have read your rantings and liberal does not mean freedom. If anyone is bastardizing the meaning of liberal, and peer review, it is you because you are too blinded by your ideology.

theendisfar said:
A climatologist is someone who studies climate. I study climate, therefor I am. I am also a Physicist. I am also a Mathematician, I am also a Musician, and so on. You study nothing, at least you have provided no evidence as such, so it is very reasonable that you would claim no such titles.

My 8 year old niece studies climate. Is she a climatologist too? My nephew plays the game operation. Does that make him a Doctor? I’m talking to a self-deluded crazy person. Does that make me a physciatrist?

I study many things but do not presume to give myself a title that I don’t rate.

theendisfar said:
I recognize that you dismiss my understanding of all my fields of study because your litmus test for expertise is confined to a Degree. My education in critical thinking and the broad exercise of that education upon many disciplines allows me to quickly learn new ones. See that is what critical thinking is at its heart, the ability to teach yourself how to learn.

No. My litmus test is reality. Sitting home and reading a book or on the interent about science does not make you a scientist. Remember Ballon Boy? He dad claimed to be a scientist too. Well you both have one thing in common; you’re both unemployed.

theendisfar said:
But can YOU be a true judge when you have no understanding? YES, you can, but only a half ass one, in name only. You engage in Peer Review, half ass mind you, but you do it according to the Climate Religion, which is half ass itself. It is not your efforts that lack, it is your set of TOOLS, well lack of.

I have no understanding of medicine but when I get sick I go to an expert, a Doctor. A REAL Doctor who went to school and has a degree.

theendisfar said:
:) Of course not, just those that believe that Climate Change is a result of increasing greenhouse gases. Yes, I know there are 200 Peer Reviewed Studies and not one has been refuted. Problem is that we skeptics have played into the believers’ hands by attempting to refute their work without them giving it to us. Proving negatives is quite difficult and impossible in many/most cases. What we can do though is show, with the methods/data they have made available, is that they have no F’ing clue whether Climate Change is natural or anthropogenic.

No proving negatives is quite easy if you have the facts on your side! Problem is you don’t.

theendisfar said:
The only results that they have offered is that their colleagues have stated something. They will not give us the methods, we must take their word for it. BS! Perhaps you can get their methods from them for us?

Who’s us? Maybe they only share their methods with other scientists and don’t with crackpots who have no standing in the scentific and academic communities.

theendisfar said:
How can YOU tell what is true or not? :) You haven’t the faculties to do so :) You must accept someone else’s explanation. Can you test it? No. Can you question it? No, they could give you any answer they pleased.

The same way I test what a Doctor says is true or not; by getting a second opinion. With climate change there are 200 second opinions that say the same thing and none that refute them.

theendisfar said:
While you shrug off the honor of being a Peer Reviewer for the Climate Industry, it is not for you to decide whether you are or not. You perform the same function, there for you are by proxy. JamesA1102 “Climate Peer Review-ologist 1st Degree”! Fancy. I must thank you again. It is not very often one gets to ‘peer’ into the mind of someone so domesticated. You’re certainly welcome to the last word, however I will most definitely have some questions. Fascinating.

Not shruging off anything. Just dealing in reality. Something you should try sometime. It is not very often I get to peer in to the mind of someone so disturbed. Bye Stevie!

JamesA1102 said:
Nonsensical drivel as usual.

No it was you since there are no REAL climatologists posting on this thread.

And yet again you misrepresent the peer review process because you don’t like the results due to your blind ideology.

And what standing in the scientific and academic community do you have to make that declaration?

Actually they are being verified by other peer reviewed studies. There are around 200 of them that all say the same thing and not one that refutes them.

Yes I have read your rantings and liberal does not mean freedom. If anyone is bastardizing the meaning of liberal, and peer review, it is you because you are too blinded by your ideology.

My 8 year old niece studies climate. Is she a climatologist too? My nephew plays the game operation. Does that make him a Doctor? I’m talking to a self-deluded crazy person. Does that make me a physciatrist?

I study many things but do not presume to give myself a title that I don’t rate.

No. My litmus test is reality. Sitting home and reading a book or on the interent about science does not make you a scientist. Remember Ballon Boy? He dad claimed to be a scientist too. Well you both have one thing in common; you’re both unemployed.

I have no understanding of medicine but when I get sick I go to an expert, a Doctor. A REAL Doctor who went to school and has a degree.

No proving negatives is quite easy if you have the facts on your side! Problem is you don’t.

Who’s us? Maybe they only share their methods with other scientists and don’t with crackpots who have no standing in the scentific and academic communities.

The same way I test what a Doctor says is true or not; by getting a second opinion. With climate change there are 200 second opinions that say the same thing and none that refute them.

Not shruging off anything. Just dealing in reality. Something you should try sometime. It is not very often I get to peer in to the mind of someone so disturbed. Bye Stevie!

Everywhere you use “peer reviewed” you should replace it with “pal reviewed”.

Remember how much ClimateGate ripped apart huge swaths of global warming “science”.

Plus, the liberal “scientists” don’t use the Scientific Method.

You are deep under water here.

I am a man made global warming denier. I am comfortable in this one sided scientifically unsophisticated position because even if I am wrong about it I know that nothing is going to change for me or anyone else about anything… ever… even if I am wrong. It is a total no risk morally neutral, reality based (and really quite sophisticated in my opinion) position to take. How do I come by this blissful state of being? It has to do with the reality that even if MMGW is true the only answer is draconian massive population control (yes including extermination) that only the likes of Hitler could fully appreciate. I’m not going to do that, and I hope, neither are you. Allow me to share the sophistication: It’s called The Population Paradox: by Paul Lutus:

“An intelligent, educated individual explains to his tribe that there are far too many human beings on the planet and that, by increasing our numbers, we risk our own safety and that of our children.
On hearing this information, the more intelligent, sensitive, caring listeners resolve to have fewer children.
On hearing the same information, the less intelligent, sensitive, caring listeners don’t change their behavior.
The result is fewer intelligent, sensitive, caring people in the next generation.

Yes, the Population Paradox really is as simple as that — to put it bluntly, people who care about the state of the planet are out-competed by those who don’t.”

If you think that mankind at the established rate of growth can reduce the use of fossil fuels enough, go ahead believe it. I believe murder is a sin, so I won’t be coming along but I’m a little more liberal when it comes to suicide, so have at it if you want to do something meaningful about it. Just do us a favor and start by shooting yourself first, and please don’t “volunteer” your family and friends. I’d like them to hang back with the rest of us and enjoy the spectacle of mankind adapting to climate change like the survivors we (less sensitive) are.

The real answer is: Let Liberals think that they are the “intelligent, sensitive, caring people” and just wait it out.

P.S. I kind of like it warmer, so I can’t lose really. And anytime I can be on the opposite side of an issue from someone who called George W. Bush a LIAR, I get all warm inside, and quite confident that after all I must be right. It’s kind of scientific, don’t you think?

Alz said:
Everywhere you use “peer reviewed” you should replace it with “pal reviewed”.

Wow! You really don’t know anything about the peer review process.

Alz said:
Remember how much ClimateGate ripped apart huge swaths of global warming “science”.

No it didn’t.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html

Alz said:
Plus, the liberal “scientists” don’t use the Scientific Method. You are deep under water here.

So scientists are liberal just because they don’t agree with you?

I don’t think I’m the one who is all wet here.

Alz said:
Everywhere you use “peer reviewed” you should replace it with “pal reviewed”.

Pal Reviewed is correct. For someone who proudly claims that he no scientist, he sure does know a great deal about that which he claims to have no understanding.

I tried to explain to JamesA1102 “Peer Review-Ologist (PRO) 1st Class” that the role of the Peer Review is just that, a Pal Review as you described.

When a scientist has tested a hypothesis and drawn his/her conclusions, the good ones typically, enlist the ‘Review’ of a trusted colleague to repeat the methods and confirm their conclusions. This is especially necessary when proposing something particularly novel because novelty will attract the most ardent of skeptics. It’s main use is to provide a reasonable amount of certainty of one’s conclusions before publishing. Who wants to publish something that is only to be quickly refuted?

If you stop at Peer Review, you cannot claim verification.

After one publishes their Theory, COMPLETE WITH METHODS (that’s for you JamesA1102 PRO 1st Class”, then the Theory is OPEN TO CRITICAL REVIEW by anyone interested in testing the METHODS and CONCLUSIONS. It is wise to get your friends to test your ideas before your skeptics tear you a new hole for making wild and unconfirmed statements, especially those that are going to end up costing tons of money.

GEAMs such as JamesA1102 PRO 1st Class have been instructed to understand Peer Review as Public Relations. If you repeat a Lie often enough then GEAM’s are powerless against it and they quickly become Pawns to their Patricians. http://wp.me/pB8xR-5G

Lots of P words describe GEAMs. I bet you can think of a few as well.

Alz said:
Plus, the liberal “scientists” don’t use the Scientific Method.

If I may, Liberal only in its hijacked form. http://wp.me/pB8xR-6T New Liberal is nothing more than New Coke. A sorry ass version of an already cheap copy (Pepsi). This is what happens when Marketing replaces Product Development.

If you want the original back, you have to demand it.

theendisfar said:
I tried to explain to JamesA1102 “Peer Review-Ologist (PRO) 1st Class” that the role of the Peer Review is just that, a Pal Review as you described.

Please! You’re totally misrepresenting the Peer Review process because you don’t like the results due to your blind ideology.

theendisfar said:
When a scientist has tested a hypothesis and drawn his/her conclusions, the good ones typically, enlist the ‘Review’ of a trusted colleague to repeat the methods and confirm their conclusions. This is especially necessary when proposing something particularly novel because novelty will attract the most ardent of skeptics. It’s main use is to provide a reasonable amount of certainty of one’s conclusions before publishing. Who wants to publish something that is only to be quickly refuted?

That is not how peer review works. You are either totally ignorant of the peer review process or you’re lying to support you ideology.

theendisfar said:
If you stop at Peer Review, you cannot claim verification.

Again total BS. That is not a standart of the scientific or academic community. And it is is so easy to get a peer review why not have all these scientists who deny global climate change just do a study that refutes it and have their friends who agree with them review it. Then you’d have a bunch of peer reviewed studies that refute climate change. So why are there no peer reviewed studies like that? Because that is not how peer review works and the science wouldn’t support denial of claimate change if it were done honestly.

theendisfar said:
After one publishes their Theory, COMPLETE WITH METHODS (that’s for you JamesA1102 PRO 1st Class”, then the Theory is OPEN TO CRITICAL REVIEW by anyone interested in testing the METHODS and CONCLUSIONS. It is wise to get your friends to test your ideas before your skeptics tear you a new hole for making wild and unconfirmed statements, especially those that are going to end up costing tons of money. GEAMs such as JamesA1102 PRO 1st Class have been instructed to understand Peer Review as Public Relations. If you repeat a Lie often enough then GEAM’s are powerless against it and they quickly become Pawns to their Patricians.

There is no such step as critical review. Peer review is critical review. And the only one repeating lies is you.

JamesA1102 said:
Please! You’re totally misrepresenting the Peer Review process because you don’t like the results due to your blind ideology.

JamesA1102, may I remind you that you are only a PRO 1st Class. This limits you to Parroting what you hear from others. You don’t understand what you are Parroting and you are not even close to understanding what Critical Review is since you must be able to Critically Think prior to Reviewing your own thoughts well before you’re experienced enough to Review someone else’s.

This does not preclude you from ever being able to Critically Think or even Critically Review, however you must first understand the point of doing so before you can make that leap. I have to thank you again and again. This exchange not only allows me to ‘peer’ into the mind of the Domesticated, but this is available for all to see.

JamesA1102 said:
That is not how peer review works. You are either totally ignorant of the peer review process or you’re lying to support you ideology.

Again, how do you know? You’re self professed nobody who uses Peer Review as a means for Faith. You don’t even need Peer Review for Faith. Just have it.

Have you ever conducted an experiment or test?

JamesA1102 said:
And it is is so easy to get a peer review why not have all these scientists who deny global climate change just do a study that refutes it and have their friends who agree with them review it

You’re a Googlist, Google “proving a negative”. There will be hundreds of examples (i.e. studies) that show it is near impossible to do so. I say near because there are plays on words that allow it. However I am speaking in these terms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

If your masters do not provide their Methods to their Conclusions, from whatever poor excuse you or they can dream up, then it is NOT POSSIBLE to prove them wrong. Your Masters know this and this is precisely why they will not share their knowledge, because it is INSUFFICIENT to make the claims they are making.

You are the other hand have been so sufficiently domesticated that you overtly share your absolute void of understanding and then proudly proclaim as fact that which you claim to be void of understanding. You have no clue how fascinating this exchange actually is. Are you High?

Thing is we skeptics often have exchanges like this with GEAMs, but never in such detail or so forthcoming.

YOU HAVE TO SHARE YOUR METHODS ORDER FOR ME TO REVIEW THEM. (That was slow and loud) Remember the game of Grapevine? You can’t figure out how the message got changed without recording all the steps that got you there. If you allow me to Peer Review your work then you have to give me all the steps.

Does this even make remote sense to you?

If I use the words ‘dude’ and ‘like’ will it help? Like Dude, I was like trying, to like get some methods, from like you know, a climatologist or something, and they don’t like trust me to like not show where any errors are if I might find them or something like that. You know what I’m talking about dude? Can you help a brother out, cause like this whole thing is really bringing the the whole like Peer Review Process to like a standstill. It’s like you gotta know the secret handshake or something to be a Peer, ya know Bra? I’m jonesing for some Methods man.

JamesA1102 said:
There is no such step as critical review. Peer review is critical review. And the only one repeating lies is you.

Again you have to be able to critically think before you can even remotely hope to critically review. I’d say that you’ll understand this when you grow up, but part of being domesticated is that while your body grows to maturity, your mind is kept daft so it is easier to control your behavior. Your mind is not likely to mature to the point of independent thought. If it is able, you are long way off.

You have no means by which to test a lie and not even the means understand that.

I wish I could interview you and record it. Seriously. I almost feel bad for you, but I don’t.

theendisfar said:
JamesA1102, may I remind you that you are only a PRO 1st Class. This limits you to Parroting what you hear from others. You don’t understand what you are Parroting and you are not even close to understanding what Critical Review is since you must be able to Critically Think prior to Reviewing your own thoughts well before you’re experienced enough to Review someone else’s. <

Please critical review is something you made up because you don’t like the results of the peer review process.

theendisfar said:
Again, how do you know? You’re self professed nobody who uses Peer Review as a means for Faith. You don’t even need Peer Review for Faith. Just have it. Have you ever conducted an experiment or test?

I don’t need to conduct any tests.There are qualified people to do that. But I do know enough about the peer review process to know that you’re misrepresenting it.

theendisfar said:
You’re a Googlist, Google “proving a negative”. There will be hundreds of examples (i.e. studies) that show it is near impossible to do so. I say near because there are plays on words that allow it. However I am speaking in these terms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

So you’re admitting that you can’t prove that global climate change is not happening and that it is not man made.

theendisfar said:
If your masters do not provide their Methods to their Conclusions, from whatever poor excuse you or they can dream up, then it is NOT POSSIBLE to prove them wrong. Your Masters know this and this is precisely why they will not share their knowledge, because it is INSUFFICIENT to make the claims they are making.

My only master is reality. Can you say the same?

theendisfar said:
YOU HAVE TO SHARE YOUR METHODS ORDER FOR ME TO REVIEW THEM.

And what standing do you have in the scientific or academic community to make that demand?

theendisfar said:
You have no means by which to test a lie and not even the means understand that. I wish I could interview you and record it. Seriously. I almost feel bad for you, but I don’t.

And neither do you. You’re not a climatologist or even a scientist. You’re an unemployed IT worker.

JamesA1102 said:
My only master is reality. Can you say the same?

Your view/piece only looks like the main focus of the puzzle, because it is the only one you can see. You don’t/can’t see the whole picture.

By truly attempting to view the same reality from many different perspectives, you get a much more accurate and broad view of the same picture.

Some people are very forthcoming about how they arrived at their understanding/view of the picture, others like the AGW Climatologists won’t share how they arrived at their view point, they only share views that are at best vague.

You have don’t have a view point because you don’t have the detail of understanding to do so. You choose to share the same view as someone you have Faith in, without knowing how they arrived at having it. Your view allows you to see ‘Green’ and only the shade described to you bu those you have Faith in.

And that brings me back to those forthcoming in their understanding of the whole picture. They all see that the shade of ‘Green’ that you can see is only a small and very narrow view of things.

I’m very pleased to have you repeat your limited view over and over again, but I’m much more interested in seeing what your Masters have to share. You can only refer to their work, you have no means to explain it.

JamesA1102 said:
You’re an unemployed IT worker.

Not technically. I am not drawing unemployment insurance. However, I am gainfully using my expertise in system design to redesign our system of Government. Perhaps you have an opinion you would like to share or parrot.

We would love to hear what others have explained to you.

theendisfar said:
Your view/piece only looks like the main focus of the puzzle, because it is the only one you can see. You don’t/can’t see the whole picture. By truly attempting to view the same reality from many different perspectives, you get a much more accurate and broad view of the same picture. Some people are very forthcoming about how they arrived at their understanding/view of the picture, others like the AGW Climatologists won’t share how they arrived at their view point, they only share views that are at best vague. You have don’t have a view point because you don’t have the detail of understanding to do so. You choose to share the same view as someone you have Faith in, without knowing how they arrived at having it. Your view allows you to see ‘Green’ and only the shade described to you bu those you have Faith in. And that brings me back to those forthcoming in their understanding of the whole picture. They all see that the shade of ‘Green’ that you can see is only a small and very narrow view of things. I’m very pleased to have you repeat your limited view over and over again, but I’m much more interested in seeing what your Masters have to share. You can only refer to their work, you have no means to explain it.

Please I see the whole picture which includes that you are more driven by your ideology so you refuse to accept the truth of 200 peer reviewed studies. You rather indulge your own delusions of being a climatologist and denying scientific truth because they don’t match up with your narrow view of the world.

theendisfar said:
Not technically. I am not drawing unemployment insurance. However, I am gainfully using my expertise in system design to redesign our system of Government. Perhaps you have an opinion you would like to share or parrot. We would love to hear what others have explained to you.

Not technically??? Is that like being a little pregnant? If no one is paying you to do a job, then you are unemployed. As far as redesigning government, how did that race for congress go?

JamesA1102 said:
Please I see the whole picture which includes that you are more driven by your ideology so you refuse to accept the truth of 200 peer reviewed studies.

You’ve spoken about my ideology more than once, what would you say it is? What would you say about these 200 Studies if they had been reviewed by Skpetics instead of Believers?

JamesA1102 said:
Not technically??? Is that like being a little pregnant? If no one is paying you to do a job, then you are unemployed.

Not according to the government, you must have filed for unemployment payments in order to be considered ‘unemployed’, by your definition the unemployment rate would be around 24% and actually 60% if you counted all Americans.

JamesA1102 said:
As far as redesigning government, how did that race for congress go?

Not well, you are a complete idiot for asking a question that you already knew the answer to. I got into the game way too late and did not realize that it is truly a BS contest instead of a chance at optimizing gov’t as I had envisioned. The D’s and R’s also make it quite impossible for anyone to run as anything else other than a D or R. Not one Independent got on the ticket in Georgia.

If you were attempting to make a jab, as you are with unemployment, you’re wasting your efforts. I Ran for US Congress. I read all the notes of the Constitutional Convention and Federalist Papers to gain an understanding of why our Republic was Founded, and I learned a great deal about just how crooked our political system is.

You googled 200 peer review studies that you can’t understand and decided whether you wanted to vote or not. Congratulations. What is your line of work James? Besides Peer Reviewing that which you don’t understand?

theendisfar said:
You’ve spoken about my ideology more than once, what would you say it is? What would you say about these 200 Studies if they had been reviewed by Skpetics instead of Believers?

See there you go again misrepresenting the peer review process because you don’t like the results due to your blind ideology.

theendisfar said:
Not according to the government, you must have filed for unemployment payments in order to be considered ‘unemployed’, by your definition the unemployment rate would be around 24% and actually 60% if you counted all Americans.

See there you go misrepresenting things again. The unemployment figure is not calculated based on those who have filed for unemployment. And even if you counted in those who are under employed or have stopped looking for a job, most analysts put the full number at about 15%, not 24%. Nor are retired senior citizens or children counted so the 60% is just a fallicy.

theendisfar said:
Not well, you are a complete idiot for asking a question that you already knew the answer to. .

Not being an idiot, just being snarky and yanking your chain.

theendisfar said:
You googled 200 peer review studies that you can’t understand and decided whether you wanted to vote or not. Congratulations. What is your line of work James? Besides Peer Reviewing that which you don’t understand?

I understand the Peer Review process which is why I don’t buy your distortions about it.