What “climate change”? Hasn’t that scam been debunked & dismissed? Read Gov. Sarah Palins’s insightful, definitive essay, “Boycott Copenhagen”, which appeared in major media outlets around the world in December, 2009.

Oh, gee…a haughty, unkempt-looking Lib elite with a bow-tie. Talk about a stereotype. But I’m pleased people like this toadstool are around to remind everyone what a true ‘LIB’ is like.

I find it interesting that the quote you attribute to charles payne is not what he said. Bill Nye rules!

Insightful and Palin are two words that should never bu used in the same sentence.  “Definitive”, maybe but only if used in the context of what defines a moron; eg. Sarah Palin is the definitive model of a moron

I wonder if it would have been helpful for Bill to highlight the bright line between science and politics in the same way that people are beginning to do with the line between politics and governance.

Billy Nye is brilliant and always handles these appearances amazingly.

Another absurdly headlined and biasedly presented column from Hall.  Context, Hall.  Nye went off on his “what happens when people of different races” have sex screed, at which point the FBN host made the “confusing” comments about how Nye “connected the dots”.  Come on, dude.  This is pretty pathetic on your part. 

The argument isn’t so much about climate change.  The climate has always changed.  We’ve gone through periods (when no humans or industrial activity existed) where the earth was much, much warmer than today.  The argument is about “anthropogenic” (caused by man) climate change. 

What people see happening is that this is just another excuse to raise taxes or fees to fund big government.  Does anyone here think they are not paying enough for gas/heating oil now?  Let’s put a “carbon tax” on it so –and we in government promise this!!– the revenues will only go toward researching alternative sources of energy (and we’ll throw in that bridge for sale, too).

Of course, another tax on energy is just what we need to spur the economy, right?   

Read Gov. Sarah Palins’s insightful, definitive essay, “Boycott Copenhagen”,- She Writes? I didn’t know she could read.

Trying to educate faux news viewers on science is about as productive as trying to teach monkeys not to throw their own poop.

Actually I take that back.  Monkeys are smarter then the average faux news viewer.  

So if your a man of science then your automaticly a Lib?

Absolutely….

Hmmmmmm….so the sterotype of an Educated Science Guy is what reminds you of what a Lib is, interesting! 

Where is Sarah Palin mentioned in this story? She must live in your head all day long. Seek help from your hate.

I’ve lost a lot of respect for Bill Nye lately. He never seems to acknowledge the other natural causes of global warming as reported by scientists. You’d think he’d talk about the more recent  findings. He stops just short of promoting government intervention, but stays away from it’s shortcomings.
Charles Payne seemed to be stopping a man from explaining how the watch was built we he just asked for the time.

Yeah, Bill Nye, try to explain a complex subject in just a few minutes so viewers can understand.

The world is getting warming , that’s not opinion that’s fact. How much of it is man made, and what we can and should do about it is the discussion.

I saw the segment. Nye seemed to be pushing a global warming point of view, but couldn’t seem to explain how ocean temperatures had anything to do with man made global warming. For a guy who’s used to explaining things in terms that non-scientists can understand, Nye just seemed to be confused himself, talking in weird circles.

Television hosts should use this clip as a textbook example on how NOT to conduct an interview.  I’ve never watched Payne before but this was really a piss-poor job.

1) The ostensible reaon for the interview was for an explanation how Irene could possibly be used to support climate change theory.  Fair enough, but if you want a guest to actually provide an explanation, it helps if you don’t try to push him to cram his thoughtful description into a single zippy sound bite.

2) ]If Payne wanted to talk about science, why would did he switch-mid conversation to politics and demand an explanation of why Gore and other climate change supporters play the race card?

3) Nye was game and took on the political question.  He again tried to provide a thoughtful answer rather than a zippy sound bite, and was again cut off by Payne(!).  At that point Payne thanked him for “connect[ing] the dots” — which of course he didn’t do because Payne took him off on this tangent at the interview(!!!)

Payne really comes off badly, and this interview conveys no scientific or political information at all, either pro or anti-climate change.  In short, it comes off as a wste of time for participants and viewers alike.

well I am sure an esteemed man of science such as yourself would be the perfect person to bring up such issues to this man.  I am sure you have numerous degrees in science, have been granted monetary funds to complete your research, been asked by many to give your views on the scientific topics of the day, and have many theories that have stood up to many many scientific tests.

Or you could just be some guy on the interent

Bill Nye did one awful job of trying to explain himself. When he started to talk about humans having sex with dogs to explain climate change thats when lost this agreement yet somehow this author didn’t even include that. Copying and pasting from media matters not the best idea Colby.

She’s had time to write plenty…Bill Nye, the so-called, ‘science guy’ is a lib and an idiot…if he actually believes this tripe about anthropogenic (human caused warming)…it’s like a religion to these guys….worse than a religion…they spew nonsense and then expect the gullible and naive’ to believe them…

No, if you are a phony, wearing a bow tie and pretending to be smart, you are most likely a lib. Using rigged code to hide real temperature trends, freezing (pun intended) critics out of peer review and then criticizing them because there is no peer review, ignoring studies that indicate solar storms have more to do with warming and cooling than a .0004 percent change in CO2, these are also common traits of Libs and power grabbing Progs.

More double talk from an alarmist. First GW was going to cause more hurricanes and now this one says it is causing fewer. Just like rising temps are evidence and dropping temps are evidence. Insanity!

What?-”Where is Sarah Palin mentioned in this story?”……… She was mentioned in the 1st post above,

With you, yes. tis’ a pity.

Amazingly poorly. 

I am glad you finally learned to stop playing with your poop.

No accurate measurement of any global temperature increase since 1995. 

Where do you get your talking points?Grover Norquist I’m guessing.

Fox “News” is an immoral network.The way Fox intentionally goes out of their way to misinform viewers ignoring the mountains of evidence proving climate change is simply immoral behavior.

Plenty of time to write? Ever hear of a ghost writer? It would be unbeliveable this woman could write a book.

Quit watching Fox, you will be a happier person.

Stick to the lefty news channels who like to distort.

GJPINKS posted:”No, if you are a phony, wearing a bow tie and pretending to be smart, you are most likely a lib.”……. That would be news to Tucker Carlson.

Oh my bad I do newest to oldest post first. So it was another wack job just throwing in Palin name when she has nothing to do with the story. Thanks

It’s funny to read all this, especially in light of new research that supports the notion that the Sun, not man, is responsible for climate change.  Research that, curiously, is getting very little media attention.

Here’s one of the few articles I’ve found on it:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

Get a job Hippy

Bill Nye is full of shit right up to that stupid looking bowtie!
Now that was excrutiating!!
OMG!

And I always thought ALGORE was boring..

This guy may even shade him in that category!

Why in the world would you try to have an ADULT discussion with a right winger? YOU are wasting your time. They are stupid inbred hillbillys. Oh wait im using a sterotype…..HaHaHa

http://climatechangeskeptic.blogspot.com/

NOAA 5 years ago decided that it would be a good idea to monitor our
oceans temperatures since the Climate Warming Modelers all predicted
that our oceans would show significant warming trends even higher then
land air temperatures. In order to monitor the oceans temperature, NOAA
launched 3000 robots in the oceans which would monitor the oceans
temperature on a continuous basis and send the information back to NOAA
scientists.

Here’s the link to location of those robots. http://sos.noaa.gov/videos/Buoywaterfall2.mov

So
whats the outcome of this 5 year study….Ocean temperatures over the
past 5 years have actually slightly decreased. That means no global
warming. That means the main indicator of global warming that the IPCC
has been so worried about has shown zero change in ocean temperatures.

But
again when ever any information or scientific paper surfaces to
contradict the myth of Global warming, the global warming alarmists
squirm and actually try to find reasons why the reality does not match
their predisposition to believe all things in their own flawed science.

Have one Bubba

I believe that you believe that! or was that Sarcism?

The only science behind global warming or “climate change” is the science of how to get on the government dole for more $ with even more fraudulent global warming fears.

Cite?

Mountains of evidence from people who have never studied or researched the past history of weather and the climate and how it relates to what has been happening over the last 100 years.

Willful ignorance is not informed skepticism, Kristen.  You’d do best to remember that.

This is the same Bill Nye who is a comedian? Is he a climatologist or Meterologist? NO!!

Things always sound boring if you can’t understand them.

Climate change equals more taxes so Al Gore can support his mansions.  All the weather changes are in the Bible.  Wake up people, there is NO GLOBAL WARMING!

If you disagree with Charles Payne you are a stone cold racist!

yeah, listen to it again. He did not talk about dogs having sex with humans

“Grover Norquist!”

*drink*

Thanks Patsy!

Let’s be clear, are you saying that it’s immoral to critically think about the “data” presented that supports man made global warming? Many credible climate scientists disagree with the models used by supporters or the man made global warming theory. To call them “immoral” because it doesn’t fit your politics is pretty disgraceful.

Nye on Gore’s racist rant: “Do you like dogs?  Sure , we all like doggies. I remind you if you have a dachshund and it has sex with a pit bull, you get a dog.”

Wow, what a jerk.

Thanks for that “scientific” insight, Bill.

You are a result of exactly what I’m taking about.Global warming has nothing to do with politics.Critically thinking about data is one thing, but a “News” network that goes out of their way to TELL people global warming doesn’t exist is immoral.Fact: most scientist says global warming is occurring.

Based on what you wrote, I can see where you’ve been sticking your electrodes.

These guys? You means educated people? 

LOL. Hey Texan. Are you with GOOD LT right now?

It’s a shame when a so called “scientist” is shown on a news program and adds nothing to the news of that day. Saying the world is getting warmer is like saying my leg itches. It’s been doing that since time began. Now we blame it on people because there is a group, greenies, that don’t want to work, but want the public to provide them with a living. Their call in life is to proclaim It’s getting warmer and it’s your fault and I want a pay check to say so where I won’t have to be a productive member of society. See Al Gore, never had a real job in his life.

It’s a shame when a so called “scientist” is shown on a news program and adds nothing to the news of that day. Saying the world is getting warmer is like saying my leg itches. It’s been doing that since time began. Now we blame it on people because there is a group, greenies, that don’t want to work, but want the public to provide them with a living. Their call in life is to proclaim It’s getting warmer and it’s your fault and I want a pay check to say so where I won’t have to be a productive member of society. See Al Gore, never had a real job in his life.

man, that was entertaining

Why is that? Please explain.

“Claims that the ocean has been cooling are correct. Claims that global warming has stopped are not. It is an illogical position: the climate is subject to a lot of natural variability, so the premise that changes should be ‘monotonic’ – temperatures rising in straight lines – ignores the fact that nature doesn’t work like that. This is why scientists normally discuss trends – 30 years or more – so that short term fluctuations can be seen as part of a greater pattern.”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm

why bring in the al gore clip for this segment?

oh, that’s right.  

it’s fox news.  they don’t really wanna talk about science.  

Yeah he’s really bad. No one can fill in for Judge Napolitano on this show. Not that he would even talk about this stuff if he was there.

“stop, bill, you’re making WAY too much sense for our viewers”

the perfect encapsulation of a frothing-at-the-mouth, mindless, right wing zombie

if you dont believe in total man-made global warming you are a racist

Nye is more like a science ‘anchorman”, if he had chosen to question global warming, he would have been bounced off public TV years ago. No gig = no money.

Where did you get your news from before Faux News? Was all the media back then just a bunch of liberal pundints?

The Drag Queen speaks

Taxes go to Al Gore?

Apparently you need a SOCIAL STUDIES AND GOVERNMENT CLASS to go along with the SCIENCE class you need.

NOW I’ve heard it all

Taxes go to Al Gore BAAAAAAAHhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Rick Parry,’is that you?!?!

ROTFL…………..WTF?

We viewers have to endure this kind of thing ..
http://www.rsurbano.com.br/

that is what al gore implies

Hmmm, this isn’t accurate enough for you?
http://www.universetoday.com/82514/2010-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-say-noaa-and-nasa/

Or does it not fit your climate change denier narrative?

that’s CLEARLY not what he implies

he’s making an analogy

Nye shouldn’t defend Gore’s antics.  Our communication among men of different races might have gotten better,(albeit through capitalism!) but Al Gore’s has gotten worst!
Nye, you didn’t address the climate skeptics, addressing man-made climate change! If scientists can’t question a theory, it’s NOT science! It’s dogma!
Just answer me one question. If there were warmer temperatures on earth than in our time, how could man be responsible for them?

I like GOOD LT. I don’t agree with him a lot. But he is a good person, Never insults  like yourself just to get his 2 cents in. But if your going to steal his “DRINK! line, I think you shouldn’t criticize a jest. Now don’t get me wrong I have thrown some insults that started because someone  started attacking me with moronic insults first. But don’t act like a fool just be insulting.This is supposed to be a forum. An exchange of thoughts. Now with that said………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. STONEPARK3 is a DRAG QUEEN.

I used to have a lot of admiration for Bill Nye.
It doesn’t require scientific credentials to be disappointed in a “science guy” who presents the facts in a lop-sided way. It is ridiculous to say that it does.
The other scientists who have reported their conflicting findings deserve to be acknowledged as well, especially by such an influential voice as Bill Nye.
If he expects his audience or students to have enough information to come to valid conclusions and judgements, he should present as much information as possible toward that end.
Your sarcasm is amusing. Thank you for making an opportunity for me to give further reasoning and punctuation to my opinion.

OHHHHH…the Irony…

“…scientists finally discover the true cause of “global warming”. It’s the sun, stupid…..

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

I think what would help is for the Scientist to talk slowly and use drawing boards to illustrate his point. Perhaps that would help Payne and his viewers understand what the hell he is saying. 

A B C, 1 2 3, get it? 

a bad one

Bill Nye ” The Lying Guy “. This guy is so full of _____ I can smell him from my house.

Well, I just read through all the comments…and I must say, this is utterly amazing. Not so much because of what Bill Nye has had to say. But that a specific scientific question is asked, only to later be denied of any scientific answer given. Then, to make matters worse, you derail the given question to something that has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand. And in the process of all of this, you begin wondering now why nothing ever got solved/resolved. Wow. That’s astounding. Really. I’m impressed. I give you the slow clap. For, from what I can gather at least, the majority of people are either too ignorant or oblivious to even fathom what is happening around them. They just assume that since the wheel has been turning for so long, nothing will ever change. That’s idiocy right there! I mean, correct me if I am mistaken here but, you DID ask a question that is to be explained in a logical, relatively unbiased manner, right? How do you expect to do that if you aren’t willing to listen with an open-mind and logical use of your brain? 
You would think that a civilization that has existed for at least 2000 years could grasp a concept so simplistic as that “the world goes through environmental changes”. Then I glance over the long lists of comments…and soon realize that even that becomes a train-wreck.  So, now I’m actually quite stunned,almost fearful of how naive and overly arrogant we have become.  Therefore, instead of having a logical debate system running here, where people can openly discuss this given subject matter in a relatively educated manner, we have a list of posts that  bring up anything from racism to Sarah Palin and Al Gore. None of which have ANYTHING to do with global warming. There are even comments about the Bible in an attempt to better solve something scientific. Religion alone is shaky waters with people. I highly doubt ones given philosophies and/or dogmas are going to make much of a dent in this argument. Besides, it’s off topic and just derails the topic further down a rabbit hole of ignorance and self-defecating “debates”.  
So, yes, the Anchorman was right in saying “You are confusing our viewers” because obviously it has. Sad part is, Bill Nye DID try to simplify an overly complex question that is stretched between three sides, religion, science, and politics. It’s overall so simply astoundingly atrocious. 
I applaud you all for your efforts and trying to refute reason, logic, and statistical scientific conclusive materials with religions, political leaders (or failures in some peoples eyes), and off topic banters. Congrats. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go purge my eyes from this mess by watching “Idiocrasy”.   

You ought to run for Village Idiot. You can’t lose.

Great job refuting his points!!!

Good, and take your flies with ya!

Anyone who told you to be yourself couldn’t have given you worse advice.

when algore stops flying his private jet around the world, sells his many houses all around the world, then he may have a little bit of credibility.  until then, yeah right.

Yeah, and I’m sure you are one of those lib dullards yelling “racism” over the use of the term “black holes.”

Project much? Please tell us more of your embarrassing moments in life.

That stupid “scientist”‘told me that if I don’t quit smoking, I’ll get lung cancer.

But he still smokes! So, until he quits;’YEAH RIGHT

Don’t you know?As I’ve told my daughters. When it comes to sex. All men are dogs!

Great job refuting his points! Real intellectual rigor there. Great job!

I struck a nerve!

What would have me rolling on the floor in laughter (if the topic wasn’t so serious) is the notion that anyone with an open mind and an ounce of intelligence would argue against steps to reduce the impact of climate change.

Of course I am referring to steps to use modern technology (e.g., wind, hydro and solar) to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. Because that is what the “climate change deniers” on Fox News, Fox Business and elsewhere are essentially doing with their silly arguments in support of Big Oil and others with a financial stake in promoting fossil fuels.

In summary, what I am saying is even if you are an inexplicable skeptic about global warming, why not error on the side of caution and at least consider some of the policies those with a different view are advocating.

Do You get all your answers  from the Bible?

He had no points- it was a meaningless diatribe of desultory incoherent ideas kinda like your posts.

I’m trying to imagine what you could have been if you had a brain.

Liberal logic at its best right here. Thanks for the laugh

Because it happened this week and Al Gore is the King of climate change? Seems to fit right into the subject that they were talking about.

Really, I guessing just want hear what you want. Not the point someones trying to make.

Observations:

1.  The Fox anchor has a predisposed position that “Climate Change” does not exist nor can be, in part, caused by man made activity.  That is not a helpful element towards meaningful discussion or debate over anthropogenic climate change.
2. The questions we’re not coming from a very objective place, yet there were valid questions about the silliness of racism and Al Gore’s comments being used in the pro-climate change argument.
3. Not much was proven or dis-proven in this rather simplistic conversation, and this segment did not serve the public in any real credible way.

What is striking in conversations like this, and in the larger media, is that the understanding of a debate itself, is sorely lacking. 

1. If you make an assertion of ANY kind, the burden of proof is squarely on YOU the “prosecution,” just as in a court of law.
2. The burden of proof cannot be on the defense to disprove a false claim.  You would be searching for evidence that simply doesn’t exist.

For example:

Take some of the things that are being flung around between politicians, and even here in this forum:

1. “Obama was born in Kenya.”  Burden of proof is on prosecution, however Obama tried to disprove something that was not valid in the first place.
2.  “Being anti-climate change makes you a racist.”  Burden of proof is useless in this case since it is so ridiculous.
3.  “SS and Medicare are ponzi-schemes.”  Burden of proof?  Again, on the prosecution.  Evidence?  Not so much…
4. “The tea party is inherently racist.”  Burden of proof?  On the prosecution.  Evidence?  Not very much.

You can certainly add to this list and use your own system of distilling what is fact and what are “feel-good-facts.”

In any type of argument on this level, remember always, the burden of proof is squarely on the person/s making the assertion, not on the defense to disprove the unproven.  So the solution is to demand evidence in order to further the conversation rather than just react in anger.

Rather than calling each other names, use the internet to search for evidence to support your argument, then post here or anywhere else.  Otherwise, what are we all getting at??? 

They brought up Al Gore in this segment for the same reasons all denialists bring him up. 
They don’t have a valid argument on the science so they need to straw man their argument.  For some reason the denialists think we look at Gore as our great leader.  As if he is the founder of climate science, provides all data and performs all the research in a milti-roomed mansion.
Ask them what they think of James Hansen’s new book, and all you get is blank stares.
Ask them how much Willie Soon earns in a years and the conversation gets changed.

Would you expect him to pedal his bicycle around the world?

And the ‘all weather changes are in the bible’ line is pretty rich too.

just don’t tell me “do as i say not as i do”. your analogy breaks down. algore is in this for the money, honey. how many hundreds of millions as he made touting doom and gloom if we don’t recycle our garbage. or stop driving cars. or get the cows to stop farting. the man is a genius at manipulation and exploitation. fyi…i quit smoking 1 year and 18 days ago.

i guess you just hear what you want too and ignore the rest…..so your point is?

Charles Payne chuckled like a 10 year old at the word sex… he heard nothing else.

why not fly the airlines the way us commoners do?

You don’t think Bill Nye is “smart”? You think he’s only pretending to be? So I guess Cornell hands out those engineering degrees in crackerjack boxes, and Boeing will let any old shlub work on the 747.

You are less smart than Bill Nye.

No, the stereotype of a frumpy academic who believes that how he looks will lend credibility to what he says. (Einstein doesn’t count) Not necessarily educated or scientific. Perception is reality – right? If I look smart, then I must be smart! 

But for Nye this is more of his ‘scientist costume’ and persona, than a reflection of a his “liberalism”. Serioulsy, if that was the case then Orvil Redenbacher was a friggin genius, and let’s not forget PeeWee Herman.I love Bill Nye when he did his children shows, totally cool!

He could telecommute.

It’s troubling that the far right has taken the position that man does not contribute to climate change. In my view evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive and both can co-exist. But the far right is stuck and seems to think that evolution is a hoax despite evidence to the contrary. Perry can’t embrace these positions to get the nomination then magically at least be open to the scientific evidence for purposes of the general election to win over independents. By that time he’ll be deemed as a flip flopper on many of his controversial positions and may become the John Kerry of 2012.

You’re right climate change has “always changed” however, if you look at the facts, over the past few million years (which I have for the past 3 years of my life) you’ll notice, never, not even CLOSE,  has warming been even close to rising this quickly. That is not a ‘debate’ that is a FACT.

We have seen temperature rises by at least 2-3 degrees in the past 100 years…..Which in geological times is crazy.

Let me also be clear, there has been times in the world with no ice on the poles, aka warmer temperatures. There is no debate about that, however, humans have never existed during those times. We ARE in a ‘Ice Age’ right now. Think about it logically for just a minute:

Before the industrial revolution, world population has stayed similarly same with population growing at a small pace. Then, it started to rise at a HUGE pace. Just humans breathing alone, adds a lot of Carbon into the earths atmosphere. Beyond that, we have never burnt fuel and materials into the world anywhere near the amount we do now. How do you think the planet copes with all of it? Seriously, think about it for a minute.

Also – looking at the greatest rises in history (in terms of temperature changes) we have exceeded that by at least 100x faster. It’s pretty scary.

No it hasn’t! You refer to a “tea” backed spin that was later found to be mis-reported. We don’t hear about that from “Fox”, so you would have missed it. There is science and facts outside of “Fox” made up facts!

You’re right climate change has “always changed” however, if you look at
the facts, over the past few million years (which I have for the past 3
years of my life) you’ll notice, never, not even CLOSE,  has warming
been even close to rising this quickly. That is not a ‘debate’ that is a
FACT.

We have seen temperature rises by at least 2-3 degrees in the past 100 years…..Which in geological times is crazy.

Let
me also be clear, there has been times in the world with no ice on the
poles, aka warmer temperatures. There is no debate about that, however,
humans have never existed during those times. We ARE in a ‘Ice Age’
right now. Think about it logically for just a minute:

Before the
industrial revolution, world population has stayed similarly same with
population growing at a small pace. Then, it started to rise at a HUGE
pace. Just humans breathing alone, adds a lot of Carbon into the earths
atmosphere. Beyond that, we have never burnt fuel and materials into the
world anywhere near the amount we do now. How do you think the planet
copes with all of it? Seriously, think about it for a minute.

Also
– looking at the greatest rises in history (in terms of temperature
changes) we have exceeded that by at least 100x faster. It’s pretty
scary. 

So if you believe in science, you’re a lib and an idiot. What do you fear about science and facts?

So, how do TAXES go into GORE’S HANDS again?

.74C or 1.33 F  not 2-3 degrees…….facts

Why bother with the apostrophe if you’re going to put it in the completely wrong place?

In the past there have been many natural events that have caused the temperature of the earth to rise. This time, it is us.

After reading these comments, one could suggest that ALEC is correct – this Shadow mostly GOP legislative council really like uneducated politicians to lead uneducated constituents.  Please just believe what we (ALEC) tell you, no intellectual curiosity is required, actually we prefer it!

Sure sounds like many here got the memo and voted YES.   

Next come the naysayers sputtering that they have scientists who will say that Climate Change is bull-pucky so case closed.  Roll em out, let’s see their scientific papers – and just for giggles, let them present their recent research on the topic.  Platitudes and rhetoric is not the way to proceed.  Someday, you may figure that out, but I really doubt that any denialist would ever actually admit that they were wrong.

In April, 2011, Koch Industries funded a study at UC Berkeley  http://berkeleyearth.org/  So go to the website and be amazed as the site goes no where.   Hmm, why is that:  as reported in the LA Times, the scientists (who was hired – and was a denialist- to confirm his stance after examining the data found that there was no error.  Ya think Koch jerked the funding?  http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404

I’ll give you a point on that one.

Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.

You say that like he’s not an engineer and a scientist. Without a doubt, absolutely no question, the man is smarter than both you and I.

Right….that’s why something like 6 or 7 of the 10 hottest years on record have been since then…

STONEPARK3 post:  I struck a nerve! … You seem say that a lot. Is that the only reason you post?  To spew your insults in delight of othes who may have a different view?

I’m for alternative energy sources, only because I believe we shouldn’t be dependent on foreign oil and I don’t like pollution. However, as I understand it, the alternatives you mention are not viable on a massive scale. The only viable option I know of is nuclear. The problem is that many people (and politicians) are inexplicably afraid of nuclear.

I must have left an imprint on your brain, I see you using the same terms I use to dispel your tantrums. lol, its funny to see you as a protege. Ahhh

Bill Nye is indeed very passionate scientist, to the skeptics,
His himself is part of the skeptic society, but NASA his scientific knowledge
and all independent research show a man made climate change nothing else.

I think you guys are all missing the big question here; Do I look pretty in this dress?

I wonder if he even read it.

Bill Nye has a Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering.  How does that make him an expert on weather or a scientist?

Why do the warmers not recognize that the Global Warming, I mean climate change, that the so called experts cooked the books. Hide the decline! BilNye is a lefty stooge, perfect Fake scientist for the cult of The sex crazed poodle, Algore.

Bill Nye doesn’t have numerous degrees in science.  Didn’t you know that?

“4. “The tea party is inherently racist.”  Burden of proof?  On the prosecution.  Evidence?  Not very much”

No, just the signs that they carried and the organizer that they — to their credit — banned for his reacist writings.  I never heard the word “inherently” used in the criticism, but since 80% of the Tea Party is from the Republican base, then the phrase “naturally racist” would be more appropriate.

One thing they are not is entirely racist or even, perhaps, mostly racists.  ”Not very much” is not enough.

This is so brutal. Every time I read an article, some ridiculous tangent
argument from zealots of whatever polarized camps emerges. “Climate
Change” is so simple. We have tons of data saying that we keep breaching
high and low temp records. We have geological data saying temps are
fluctuating outside of normal parameters. We have more data showing
human-caused atmospheric pollution is changing the composition of the
atmosphere. We have no direct causation to ‘prove’ that the temp changes
are our fault. So both camps can either bicker and pick-and-choose
which pieces of data to ‘agree’ with (Even though data is just data,
disagreeing with data is… well there’s something seriously wrong with
your cognitive process) We can -interpret- that data a few (dozens) different
ways. One is to say that we might upset the fragile balance of the
planets biosphere and make it uninhabitable to humans. (We cant kill all
life on this planet, yet. No technology exists, at least publicly, that
can accomplish this) The other is to say that the Earth changes,
frequently, on its own, and has been doing so for billions of years
before Humans, or any primate, evolved, so we shouldn’t worry since we cant stop it. The first interpretation cannot
be proven without tons more data (Mostly that data being we continue
living on plant Earth for a few thousand years, or die out) and the
second is very, very hard to disprove anyways (Since all data points to
that interpretation) but for all we know, the Earth might have naturally
become inhospitable to us during this time period, even without any technological intervention.
However, this change, which is happening, will probably be accelerated and/or
aggravated by human-caused pollution. Since this change appears to
probably not be something we want to happen (A static, well predicted
planet is much easier to grow food for 7+ billion humans than a dynamic
one is) we could probably stop polluting so much.

TL:DR (Climate Change); Both camps are wrong simply for being gullible
to polarized politics. The Earths temperature is undeniably fluctuating,
and pollution is undeniably bad, although the link between the two (if
there is one) will only truly emerge far after its too late to avert a
complete upset of humanity’s current prosperity.

TL:DR (for this article); The point (joke? satire?) of the article is that 
Fox viewers cant understand basic scientific principles (Which are about
two easy to read sentences long), (e.g
Observe->Hypothesis->Experiment->Rinse&Repeat) and
therefore are dumb and/or uneducated.

That’s not what he “implies.” He says that the situation is analogous to racism from a moral perspective.

They don’t teach reading comprehension in Ohio?

Oh you mean the corrupt science community.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

Surely you jest.

Yes, because the man whose ego wrote “How to be Right” can most definitely never be wrong, nor can the author of “365 Ways to Annoy a Liberal” be conservatively biased. The sun does indeed change the temperature of the Earth, and very occasionally the weather (it alters its intensity every 7-10 years), but global climate change is beyond its grasp, unless it goes nova or simply dies out from-if you will-lack of fuel. Get off the computer and finish school, then you can figure out what the sun does and does not do.

AL GORE,
Tell us all about your background in Science.  What?    You used a Bunson Burner is High School?  I don’t know how to break this to you.  My scientists say that climate over the years comes in cycles.  I just listened to Charles Payne interview…the Science Guy…Bill Nye.   Bill asks us to review the climate change for the past six years. I recommend that everyone study the climate for all the years that we had Category #4 Hurricanes to the present date.   Gore, when is very cold, you call it Climate Change….when it is very hot, you call it Global Warming.  You were a lousy Vice President.  Don’t ask us to trust your scientific background.
GREAT INTERVIEW, CHARLES PAYNE.  THANKS.
Delores Smith
Delores109@cox.net

You’re kinda right, but you’re also kind of wrong. I also dislike how you’re bringing in steep population increase into the conversation, as that is a different argument entirely, and the amount of CO2 released by the human race breathing is very negligible.

I greatly love the fact that you point out that we are currently in an ice age. It is often overlooked.

Texas logic ergo Rick(Marlboro man) Perry follower, eh?

I think he means smart.

Thanks for the info, shit for brains.

Michael T’s suggested alternatives are viable, they are simply inefficient and currently not being looked into to scientifically enhance their efficiency. Science also leaves nuclear reactors dangerously unstable and (unbelievably) mildly inefficient. It’s ironic that our efficiency with fossil fuels is so great.

Of course it’s confusing to “Freedom Watch” viewers. Freedom Watch viewers are morons. 

The problem with the global warming models is that they pretty ignore nature completely…  more than that the scientist leading the charge of AGW tend to look the other way when their model predictions don’t match data collection….  This whole exchange on Fox would have been better had Nye spent more time comparing and contrasting a few different theories which attempt to explain climate variations instead of taking us off on some journey through how people of different races can breed..  Probably not his fault as the interviewer did not ask the right question, instead of having a scientist talk about science, he instead had him talk about the value of Gore’s over the top statement. 

Beware the prophet seeking a profit $$$$$$$$$$ or a 10.000 square foot home.

sorry but that is not a fact.  It is something that you have been told so many times you think it is a fact.  FACT:  Most scientist think the evidence is inconclusive at best and completely fabricated at worst.   

Sorry but that is not a fact.  It is something that has been repeated so many times that it only appears to be a fact.   The Fact is that most scientist either think the “evidence” is inconclusive at best and outright fabricated at worst.   Over 30,000 scientist have signed a petition questioning global warming also please look up “climate gate”  where it was shown that evidence was being manipulated to serve already established conclusion.    I, like most scientist say that the “evidence” is inconclusive. 

Ooooh, burn.

might help him lose his ample butt.  Besides, he enjoys messages doesn’t he?  After a long day of biking what could be better? lol

Al Gore does profit through his substantial investments in Generation Investment Management which owns CAMCO. CAMCO is heavily in the carbon reduction business through its various businesses, One of the businesses deals in carbon trading. Carbon trading has come about due to taxation, cap and trade that various governments have legislated. Europe has been one of the leaders in government sponsored carbon trading. These experimental programs have run into rampant fraud and abuse usually being scrapped or re-invented.

Al does not derive money directly from taxes but indirectly through carbon taxation and cap and trade laws and the trading of these non-comodities. Taxes do not go directly to Gore but indirectly via government legislation and taxes on carbon.

Possibly a class on corporate business and accounting will enlighten you on how to follow the money.

What are you talking about? In what way does this demonstrate corruption?

I could see where viewers would lose their focus when Bill Nye starting talking about dogs having sex to defend Al Gore over the top comments.

Er, no, it wasn’t shown that evidence was being manipulated. You might benefit from staying current! As for the “30,000 scientists” who have signed that petition, it’s worth noting that the majority of them are people with a B.S., generally not in any field related to climate science. These are not people that I find particularly authoritative.

Fox facts,rights

Here is more evidence from an actual comprehensive scientific study, by real scientists, that THE SUN and it’s activity is a major, if not the most important factor in what happens to the climate on earth. The report states clearly, that the current scientific climate models need to be re-evaluated because they don’t take this new evidence into account.

That means that what ever the scientists who believe in man-made global warming thought before, they need to go back to the drawing board.

The Presstitutes and their “useful idiot” helpers don’t want you to know about this.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/  

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/#comment-298138201

Only a teabagger would
equate what Nye said about different breeds of dogs having sex to humans having
sex with dogs.  How you make this leap is astounding, considering Nye said
no such thing.  The host was right and understands the intelligence level
of his audience. He knows that 2+2=4 confuses the average Fox viewer, so it was
pointless to even try to discuss science on any level, therefore the weird turn
towards Gore and race.

Over 9000 of those scientists have PHD’s

When my trees start changing colors in late July…I can see climate change. 

Couldn’t say it any better!! Well done,

If you don’t think that AGW is political you should study the issue a little harder…  It has been political since it’s inception…  From cap and trade programs in Europe that have done little to lesson emissions, but have come at a great costs to the consumers to the 3rd world development programs anticipated by the UN..  to the failed cap and trade program here in this country and the current regulations being handed down by the EPA… Even local planning authorities all over the country are using ICLEI programs in community planning. AGW is as about as political as a topic that you can find today…  In fact if they would divorce politics from the science we would better be able to listen to both sides on this issue.

I dread to think of the indignities that Mister Wizard or Carl Sagan might have endured if they lived in this new Dark Ages we are sliding into.

For whatever reason you ascribe the cause to, I doubt anyone would disagree that it’s as hot as the ninth circle of Hell in Texas.  It’s been that way (on purpose) — hot and dry — to send you a message “where you live,” in your breadbasket. But that’s been done by faith, through God.  It’s not science, not a trend, and not up for a vote.  

However, God’s spoken compassion about you — not for your sakes of course (you are mean-spirited, defiant, arrogant people, and deserve more of what you’ve already got).  But for Jesus’ sake (who died for you), and for the sakes of others (farmers, and other folks who might be hurt by escalating food prices) — the drought will be broken, and you will get your rain.  It will come soon … it’s on it’s way to you.  And you won’t have more drought this season.So while you’re aiming your slanders and nasty remarks at others, and tearing people apart, remember God’s watching you, and He can either give you rain or withhold it at His will; and none of your cloud seeding & machinery will make it rain when He says, Drought … and none of your dams will hold back the water, when He says, Keep Raining …. and none of your fire teams will put the blaze out when he says, Firestorm.And when you aim your HAARPs and SatLasers and BlueBeams at the East Coast, or the Carribean, or the New Madrid/Wabash fault lines, to see how many of us you can kill and make it look like an act of God … remember God’s watching.  He knows who aimed it at us, and who gave the orders … and you can quite suddenly fall down … completely, irretrievably dead … and find your spirit falling into Hell (with no way back).  God isn’t happy that you’re doing these vicious things, and then saying He’s the cause of misfortunes.Your last little foray with the machinery left over 20 dead here.  Another storm is currently being stirred up in the Caribbean, for “punting” over towards us.  See that you don’t do that.  But God will still allow your rain to come for the rest of the season, because of His mercy.  So, don’t press your luck.  If you continue behaving badly, you’ll get alot more than rain.

I see no difference in people like Al Gore and those who produced,wrote and directed the movie Reefer Madness.

uh…  Maybe through the carbon exchanges that he has invested heavily in, failure of the Cap and Trade bill to pass was a big set back for our friend AL..    Or maybe you should take a look into the Electric car company he is invested in which manufactures in Europe, but that did not stop Obama from giving them some $500 million as part of the stimulus package…  

If you stick your fingers in your ear and yell “nananananana I can’t hear you” you AREN’T a scientist.

Medeival warming period…”NANANANANA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

13 years of no temperature increase…….”NANANANANA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

Faked data…..”NANANANAN I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

When one side wants to debate and the other says “NO debate, it’s settled,” you can be pretty sure the side that doesn’t want to debate is in the wrong.

Oh, there are also the 30,000 scientists (including over 9000 PhD’s) who’ve signed the Oregon petition saying it’s all bunk.

On the other hand, if the fairy tale didn’t exist, what would Robert Kennedy Jr. and Al Gore do for a living?

I didn’t know Quitter/Gov. Palin was a climate scientist. You learn something new everyday!

Trollin’ hard or hardly trollin’?

To add a word about what the rest of you are talking about … climate change data is extensive and speaks for itself.  But these changes will pale compared to what’s going to happen as a result of aiming HAARP upwards at the ionosphere, and contorting the skirts of our magnetosphere wide open.  Solar coronal plasma discharges can spew forth and backwash up our skirts!

As we speak, there’s a huge blue ring of light racing towards us … the sort of phenomena that the ancient Egyptians created the “Blue Eye of God” to depict (what we call Ra’s eye, these days).  You can find the logo everywhere, in all sorts of groups, and even as the logo of Ch. 2 — because this phenomena caused lots of problems on planet earth in the past.  It happens from time to time.

God’s punishments are on the way … we’ve got a little time yet.  But this stuff we’re experiencing at the hands of the christian military complex who gives HAARP their targets, and at the hands of foreign one-worlders (as well as the ones we’ve got here at home, posing as fundamentalists) is strictly man’s doing — and it will make it almost impossible for many millions of us to survive the coming changes that aren’t our doing.

As if their current hubris isn’t enought, they’re planning on provoking solar coronal instabilities to mine the sun for energy (while they’re weakening our atmospheric shield — and that big blue ring of light is on the way.)  They’re complete and utter fools.   They think they can hole up underground and grow the pure seeds they’ve collected, and survive this.

The ancient prophet Amos said they’d set the atmosphere on fire, and pray inside their mountain complexes for the mountains to fall on them and put them out of their misery — but notice how they have absolutely no compassion for the rest of us.

Their plan is to hole up and wait this out, so that when they emerge, we (the masses) are conveniently all dead, and earth is a far emptier place, with more for them.  What rubes!!

Since some don’t believe human activity is contributing to global warming, maybe those same people can describe how dumping a seemingly endless supply of stuff like sulfur dioxide, mercury, carbon etc. etc. is GOOD for us. Perhaps they can provide some scientific evidence that chemically trapping the sun’s energy with an endless barrage of chemicals and gases that aren’t naturally a part of the atmosphere doesn’t do anything to heat the earth’s surface; even after more than a century of widespread industrial activity. Perhaps there is even data that it is good for us! If one of you people who seem to be in favor of air pollution can show me the benefits, I’ll go out and grab a breath of the fourth worst air quality in the United States in your honor.

Climate change is most-assuredly happening, just as it has many times in the earth’s past… the difference is, in the past CO2 levels in the atmosphere naturally varied between 180ppm at the coldest points (during ice ages) and 280ppm during the warmest periods (it has consistently cycled up and down in sync with temperature changes like that about a half dozen times over the past 400,000 years)… but because of the extra release from burning fossil fuels, CO2 is currently at 380ppm and still climbing. Whether or not that makes this warming cycle accelerate so much that humans can no longer survive won’t be certain for at least 50 to 100 years…  so YOU won’t have to worry about it. Your grandkids might, though.

Why don’t you explain why all these scientists think that the sun is the major factor that determines climate change.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

i see all these pissy arguments over political opinion, and all i can think about is
BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!BILL!v

Right on!  And don’t you love the accuracy of these sophisticated Climate Models that Nye tells us are so wonderful,  like the one that just told us the Hudson River would  back up into downtown NYC.

They can’t even accurately follow a hurricane, and we’re supposed to believe it’s unpatriotic to question these esteemed scientists?

Really?  I even played the video this morning because my wife is a big fan of Bill Nye and I thought the headline was funny.

Why Bill Nye was discussing climate change and its relation to Hurricane Irene was only the first tier question.

The second question was why an ostensibly business channel was discussing this, instead of someone who could talk about the economic impact (not just the damage, but disrupted business) was a second tier question.

I knew the answer to the third was that this was really stupid and Mediaite found something about a hot-button issue and said, “We’ll get eyeballs.”  The quote took place so late in the interview that even my wife was getting bored.

Neither of us are scientists, but the logic of the conversation fell away pretty quickly.  I didn’t expect Nye to make a cogent argument about climate change in a few minutes, but I didn’t expect the “host” to take up time with an asinine Gore interview for almost a minute of their “segment”.

But it got our eyeballs, so Mediaite must be doing something right, unlike incompetent TV people and their guests who are trying to explain complex things in a matter of minutes.

You should take everything they say with a grain of salt, and fear them,  when they tell you it’s undisputed fact and the subject is closed, as AlGore does, and he’s not even a scientists! 

Remember how saccharin was supposed to cause cancer and later they came out and said…well, maybe not.  The same with saline implants used for women who lost a breast to cancer, or even women who wanted bigger boobs.  The implants were supposed to cause Lupus so they were taken off the market.  Then later, it turns out they were wrong and now they are being implanted as prosthesis every day. I could go on with more stories where”scientists” declared something to be fact, then it turned out NOT to be fact.  Here’s a story that makers my point.

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/06/06/060611-opinions-column-shrimp-butterworth-1-2/

The scientists who first claimed that people were causing global climate change did come forward and say they made it up. However, that was not all of the information on the subject. The world is currently getting warmer, even if people are not causing it; and it is possible, though not certain that people are the cause.

Why don’t you read this story and tell me if you still believe that scientists are infallible and we should believe everything they tell us.

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/06/06/060611-opinions-column-shrimp-butterworth-1-2/

Ok, let’s run with your thesis here, for the sake of silliness.  So people should stop breathing?  Should cattle stop flatulating?  Is your answer — like so many others– a “carbon tax” that does nothing whatsoever to alleviate anything except commerce? 

What’s your solution? And since this seems sooo urgent, what possible solution are you going to offer up that is going to take the place of fossil fuels and at the same time not stifle commerce or economic growth? 

All we hear are things like new taxes, which is absurd.  Even if government could be trusted to funnel whatever funds that were generated specifically toward research/development into alternative energies, another tax is going to be detrimental to business and commerce.  There are no two ways about it. 

And we can’t trust government to compartmentalize and direct funds that way.  Those revenues would go toward more government, so some other schmuck can get elected by saying “look at the pork I brought you!”.  You all know this. 

First, what is this nanana stuff? Are you for real? Talk about lost in “tea bubble” world and not debating when wrong! Many of those who they claimed signed are in question! If you would research the facts, ( you’re tea so you won’t) you’ll out who funded Leipzia’s Declaration to debunk this issue. Follow the money and this ones funny! Lets go with facts not party spin!

anyone that disagrees with climate change hates sex or is a racist…got it…NEXT! 

Ooook, soooo a stereotype of a ‘frumpy academic’ guy………’dowdy: primly out of date…..Of, relating to, or characteristic of a school, especially one of higher learning’ guy, rt?????  Its getting deeper now, hmmmmmmmm!!!!!

Careful there, Randroid.  The last time you guys attempted that stale old move with “well we have more scientists than you”, you kind of got your asses kicked by Project Steve.  ^_^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

And I don’t think any serious scientists dispute that the Earth does go through cycles of warming and cooling.  That’s not the question (but nice try at reframing anyway).  The question is:  is the current warming trend merely the result of an overall warming cycle, or some comination of warming cycle + human action, or human action alone?  Ie., have our actions entirely caused a warming trend or have we merely hastened or strengthened an existing trend?  This is not an irrational question at all to be asking.
What IS irrational, however, is to refuse to imagine that a governor of a state whose entire economy is founded on the fossil fuel industry might have an ulterior motive when he chooses to deny the existence of long-term negative consequences OF that industry.  In other words, you guys are the ones sticking fingers in ears over that one.

While I’m happy that GRBSPR is willing to concede that all smart people are liberals, sadly I don’t think he intends it as a compliment.  Nor do I believe it is true (as long as the right still has Bill Buckley, they’ll still have one intelligent, sane man left).

This is very odd, but there are a surprising number of people who don’t think being smart is better than being dumb.

I think that, too, would confuse Fox viewers.  :P

While I appreciate your sentiment, I must pause for a semantic quibble.  I do not “believe” in science, and I hope you merely misspoke.  Belief implies faith, which leads us to the ludicrous counter-charge often made by the antiscientific:  that science is “just another religion anyway”, and that therefore it’s each person’s free choice what religion to pick, so no one viewpoint is empirically superior and it’s all subjective.

One does not “believe” in science because you are not being asked to take things on faith.  It’s not that there isn’t doubt, it’s that you remain aware at all times of the margin of error and the possibility that the presently-accepted theory that explains given phenomenon A might later turn out to be flawed and need to be reworked in order to explain conflicting data.  Religion is by its nature conservative and inflexible, trying to set the scripture in stone and then deny any change or interpretation.  It promises safety, security, certainty, and comfort.  Science is by its nature adaptive and fluid, changing constantly as new information is collected.  It can be scary because it holds out no offer of certainty or permanency – in fact, quite the opposite.  Science practically promises, “what we are telling you now, will probably one day be discovered to have been partly or completely incorrect.”  It challenges you to learn, think, grow, and to keep up on new information.  It is not a worldview for the faint of heart.

To say one “believes” in science does it a disservice.  It is not a philosophy, a religion, a creed, or a political party.  It is a way of thinking about and perceiving the world which accepts one’s own fallibility and aspires to the honesty to admit error.  As such, one either *practises* the scientific method, or does not.  Belief has nothing to do with it.

I don’t care what his politics are…Bill Nye is a PSEUDOscience guy.  He has always been a hack.  Never could stand him and his self-promotion.

I don’t care what his politics are…Bill Nye is a PSEUDOscience guy.  He has always been a hack.  Never could stand him and his self-promotion.

Do you ever wonder about those grants that scientists get and whether or not it influences what they do and say??  BTW, Nye is not a real scientist…

global warming is moral lol good one GBR

The government doesn’t really want alternative energy.  I know, because someone close to me has a working project that would produce very cheap energy sufficient to light the whole world with no negative impact on the environment, but they won’t look at it. 

What happened to Global Cooling? – in the 70′s & 80′s THAT was the Cause Du-Jour!!!

Did Gore’s Cash Pie run low, so he’s got to incite the LIBERAL LEMMINGS again?

LOL!

You Fools!

The global climate has been changing constantly since the beginning of the Earth’s formation… Nothing new here.

Don’t forget acid rain.

The scientists hawking it were wrong, wrong, wrong.

http://employees.oneonta.edu/blechmjb/jbpages/m205/The%20EPA%20vs_%20Ed%20Krug.htm

We might not be on the same page here!

I didn’t and never said he did.

“Wait ’till March and we’ll tell you it’s anthropomorphic climate change.”

And that’s the problem.  Re: “the value of scientific evidence.”  When scientists, fallible humans, construct models with the assumptions they do and have preconceived notion on how that data they’re waiting on fits within that model, they WILL come back with a positive result (or a result which seemingly validates their model – even if they have to wedge some pieces of data in sideways.  Never discount that a person’s models are matters of pride)  This isn’t just particular to climatology but happens across many disciplines of science, and it sometimes takes years – decades even – for different ideas or a new understanding to effect fundamental changes in how they construct their models.  It just so happens that the climate change crowd have imbued their discipline with an agenda (owing to politics and issues of funding) – and agenda driven science should always be viewed as suspect.

There is room for future change, but we don’t want to get “angry” over the world “not” being flat. Every few years in science we improve certain thoughts and theories, from years before. That in no ways mean an issue that is so fact based,… needs to be “wrong” because science has been wrong in the past! When nearly 100% of those that fight these facts, are funded by Koch, oil, coal and most related to the ‘tea party”, this should tell you something. Just see who funds Leipzia!

Very good point! which is why you should question everything especially the scientists who deny climate change who have grants from energy companies. They actually donate more money to the “cause” than anyone.

He isn’t? I know he was an engineer for Boeing. He also has a mechanical engineering degree from Cornell (shout out to “The Nard-dog”) so he does have a background in science. Then again, Einstein was a clerk.

Your welcome. Thank you as well for not taking yourself too seriously.

His credibility is not the point, he was not the first to postulate the effect of Humans increasing the rate of cyclic global climate change. He is not a climatologist just as he wasn’t a computer programmer when he pushed for the funding the development of what would become the WWW. Would a bank robber saying don’t rob banks make robbing banks OK just because he did, of course not. A persons actions do not change facts and the fact is we impact the ecosystem and anyone who suggests otherwise is wrong. It is up for debate exactly how much our deforestation, releasing of greenhouse gases through fossil fuels, and farming techniques have and will impact the planet, to suggest otherwise is naive at best and outright lying at worst. We need to change our habits for future generations because national debt is the least of their worries.

And just as soon, you started eating your own.

http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php

This should put to bed this ridiculous notion, but the true ideologues will remain unpersuaded. The length of time this has been going on is remarkable and is due mostly to stubborn ignorance on the part of the left wing moon-bats that promote it.

He is more television personality than scientist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

There you will find he has a BS in mechanical engineering from Cornell and two honorary degrees – one non-specified doctorate from Johns-Hopkins and another honorary doctorate of science from Willamette.

This does not make him a scientist or an authority on man made climate change. He is reciting lines like an actor, and hiding behind a lab coat. No professional authority or experience in climatology what so ever.

If you want a true scientist go to the source. This site http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php will tell you more in five minutes reading than Bill Nye could in hours of television shows, and it has 31,487 scientists to back up its credibility, 9,029 of those scientists are PhDs. 

The only thing real about man caused global warming is that it is a hoax.

And anyone who believes in climate change being related to the activities of mankind is an idiot – got it?

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Read and learn.

There is none. Good call!

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

“(as long as the right still has Bill Buckley, they’ll still have one intelligent, sane man left).”

Well, too bad for them, then…  since Junior died about the time Obama emerged as a serious opponent to Hillary.

No one is denying science, just the misapplication and misinterpretation of science being practiced by liberals under the global warming hoax.

Read this  – http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
Just because some one says something is a certain way, doesn’t mean they are telling you the truth, no matter how demonstrative they get about it.

Mr. Wizard? The one from the Mickey Mouse Club or the one from the cartoons? That cartoon featured Tooter the turtle (who lived in a shoe box in the woods) and his wise friend, Mr. Wizard. Tutor always wanted to go somewhere or be someone, which Mr. Wizard would reluctantly grant with a wave of his magic wand. When Tooter got into trouble, he would yell, “Help me, Mr. Wizard! I don’t want to be a (fill in the blank) anymore!” Then the voice of Mr. Wizard would incant: Drizzle, drazzle, dradle, drone, Time for this one to come home.

Water trees you should when hot the weather is.

Proof of that hoax exists here – http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Why of course you do.

Yes man made climate change is disputed, and in fact debunked, fishchef. Read this and weep – http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

You and your friends are up against the science of 39,000 plus scientists.

The far right is agreeing with 39,000 plus scientists on this subject. Global climate change is a hoax and here is the information and signatures of science professionals who agree with that assessment:

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Go look at http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/

Here’s your proof Victor that global warming is a hoax – http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

What do you actually know about the tea party to begin with? I’d like some empirical evidence of that percentage please. Your assumption that Republicans and the tea party people are naturally racist is typical of your small minded views. The fact you even brought racism into this is more proof you are completely incompetent and utterly useless as an analyst. You use your own prejudiced beliefs to make your case instead of actual fact. You think they are the same thing but they are far from it. You can’t make a distinction because your focus is you and not the external things that matter like the human race and the world in general.

Another flaw in your logic – you claim to be a Republican – does that make you a racist too?

Just ’cause “death panels” pronounces pundits as pundints does not mean you have to follow her.

Yes, we should definitely take the word of someone that knows not the difference between it’s and its.

Snake, your mention of the WWW brings up this: The internet was a defense project under DARPA that began in the 1960′s and was known in it’s infancy as ARPANET. It consisted of a telecommunications linking of all government owned mainframe computers so in case of war the Pentagon could commandeer the computing power needed for targeting the enemy anywhere in the world no matter what the degree of damage was inflicted by a first nuclear strike by the Soviets and their allies.

Al Gore had absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever. Internet Protocol and Telecommunications Protocol were developed and put in use on ARPANET before Al Gore was in college. All the supporting infrastructure that the internet uses like File Transfer Protocol and the aforementioned TCP/IP all came from the Pentagon and DARPA.

Myth Busted.

Now, Part Two –

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Man Made Global Warming is a H O A X.

That’s not an “article”; it’s a blog. i.e. an opinion piece.
Why don’t you try http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/ instead.

A number of critics of the petition questioned the scientific credentials and the authenticity of the names of the signatories.

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
Several environmental groups questioned some of the names in the petition. For instance: “Perry S. Mason”, who was a legitimate scientist who shared the name of a TV character. Similarly, “Michael J. Fox”, “Robert C. Byrd”, and “John C. Grisham” were signatories with names shared with famous people. Geraldine Halliwell was added as: “Dr. Geri Halliwell” and “Dr. Halliwell.” This name may have been contributed by a proxy trying to discredit the petition since Ms. Halliwell has never admitted to signing the petition.
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. “When we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out a fake”, he said.

In 2001, Scientific American reported:
Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?

I got your scientific answer – http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Read this and get back to us.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Careful… don’t sail off the edge of the earth, there.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Endure this and be enlightened: http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

That is a piss poor analogy on Gore’s part. I don’t think that he stated it was like racism from a moral perspective in those words, so how do you arrive at that conclusion, Victor?

The last remark to cjdohio was uncalled for and why I have told you time and again you need a lot of humility dumped on your head so you can understand that belittling others is not the mark of an intellectual man.

I suppose that you feel in your egocentric personality that you are justified in acting this way, but it is socially unacceptable behavior under and circumstance.

Speaking of socially unacceptable behavior, why is it you never respond to my repeated comment about your login priveledges being revoked on GlennBeck.com? You haven’t even addressed that regarding the half a dozen anonymous aliases you used to creep back in until those were also revealed to the admin and they blocked you out on those IDs too. It must be that you are ashamed of that whole affair, or that you are too embarrassed to admit you got beat. Either way, you lost in your bid to take your false accusations and fabrications and dump them on that site any more.

Too bad. I think I will pray for your salvation from now on.

Bill Nye is a fraud. See his Wiki and find out for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

That petition is old and previously debunked.  I weep only for those who can’t believe in proven facts.

Nice to have a dumbass english teacher in the room, what did you win a spelling bee as a kid…  Is that your big claim to fame…  Pendejo!

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
That site states the case that climate change as promoted by Al Gore and the liberal political agenda is a hoax.

Your claim that conservatives argue against mitigation of the impact of climate change is untrue.
Actually, the real argument is about economics, not the use of technology, and it just is not economically feasible to pursue these current technology alternatives to conventional energy production. Studies of the cost per unit of energy produced in “green energy” versus current standard fuel sources and technology is still in favor of the same energy sources we use now. What part of unaffordable is so hard for you to understand? Three to four times the billed cost for energy consumed by the average household is going to cause a return to pre-industrial revolution conditions in the average American household. I and a lot of other people find that an unacceptable cost burden.

This is not a silly argument. Your insistence that it is, is a silly argument.

Here’s your valid argument on the science – http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Want Science? We have Science – http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Nye and Gore are both frauds, so it follows.

Not so. There’s ample open land in the american southwest to erect enough solar collectors to provide all the electricity on earth, so it scales up quite nicely. You wouldn’t want to pay for the copper (or even aluminum w/steel messenger) to send it 3,000 miles to its point of (your) usage though… it’s in fact more efficient to build multiple generation sites. But the sun sends more energy to the earth in 1 hour than every human alive today uses in an entire year.

The main problem with nuclear is what to do with the waste created by the process. The safest nuclear reactor is the one we already have, located about (depending on the point in earth’s annual orbit around it) 93 million miles from us.

I get some of my answers there, but I also have this to back me up – http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

The petition’s age is immaterial – fact does not age. Don’t weep for me – save it for yourself.

Your references – the Seattle Times, Scientific American, op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly – all liberal biased sources.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/01/28/climategate-the-shaming-of-scientific-american/

“Climategate: The Shaming of “Scientific American”
Pity Scientific American. Little did the magazine’s editors know when putting together their February issue that their boneheaded article Negating “Climategate”: Copenhagen Talks and Climate Science Survive Stolen E-Mail Controversy now reads as if it were written by David Biello somewhere around 1993. Oh, well, back when this nonsense was written (December?) some people still believed the Himalayan glaciers were about to disappear, not to mention the Amazonian rainforests. Nor did we know that not just the East Anglia CRU, but also our own NASA had been playing fast and loose with AGW temperature facts, for some reason needing a FOIA to cough up data that should be public record in such a scientific endeavor. The poor editors of SA are taking a drubbing in the comments, which they richly deserve.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, Bin Laden is apparently jumping on the “global warming bandwagon.” I think we should give him an Oscar!”

That was your most credible source going down in flames. As far as the other two are concerned with the signatures on the petition, read this :
http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php

In specific, look at FAQs 5, 6 and 7 below, but read the whole thing anyway – it puts to bed your notions of this petition being discredited, as well as your presented support for the discrediting of the petition.

1. Is the Petition Project fulfilling expectations?

The project has fulfilled the expectations of its organizers. In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.

Moreover, the current totals of 31,487 signers, including 9,029 PhDs, are limited only by Petition Project resources. With more funds for printing and postage, these numbers would be much higher.

2. Has the petition project helped to diminish the threat of energy and technology rationing?

The accomplishments of science and engineering have transformed the world. They have markedly increased the quality, quantity, and length of human life and have enabled human beings to make many improvements in the natural environment of the Earth.

Today, scientists are seeing the accomplishments of science demonized and one of the three most important molecular substances that make life possible – atmospheric carbon dioxide (the other two being oxygen and water) – denigrated as an atmospheric “pollutant” in a widely circulated movie. Scientists who have carefully examined the facts know that this movie contains numerous falsehoods. This and many other similar misguided propaganda efforts in the media, naturally repel men and women who know the truth. The search for truth is the essence of science. When science is misrepresented, scientists are naturally incensed.

There is, therefore, a rapidly growing backlash of opposition among American scientists to this egregious misuse of the reputation and procedures of science. The Petition Project is helping to demonstrate this opposition and, therefore, to reduce the chances of misguided political reductions in science-based technology.

3. Who organized the Petition Project?

The Petition Project was organized by a group of physicists and physical chemists who conduct scientific research at several American scientific institutions. The petition statement and the signatures of its 31,487 signers, however, speak for themselves. The primary relevant role of the organizers is that they are among the 9,029 PhD signers of the petition.

4. Who pays for the Petition Project?

The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals, many of whom are signers of the petition. The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. No funds or resources of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are used for the Petition Project. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has never received funds or resources from energy industries, and none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production. Donations to the project are primarily used for printing and postage. Most of the labor for the project has been provided by scientist volunteers.

5. Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

6. Does the petition project list contain duplicate names?

Thousands of scientists have signed the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization. Primarily as a result of name and address variants, occasional duplicate names are found in the list. These are immediately removed.

7. Are any of the listed signers dead?

In a group of more than 30,000 people, deaths are a frequent occurrence. The Petition Project has no comprehensive method by which it is notified about deaths of signatories. When we do learn of a death, an “*” is placed beside the name of the signatory. For examples, Edward Teller, Arnold Beckman, Philip Abelson, William Nierenberg, and Martin Kamen are American scientists who signed the Petition and are now deceased.

8. Why is this effort called “Petition Project?”

Signatories to the petition have signed just the petition – which speaks for itself. The organizers – themselves scientists located at several scientific institutions – have designed the project to emphasize this single fact. The use of a post office box mailing address, a generic name – Petition Project, and other institutionally-neutral aspects of the project are intended to avoid the impression that the signatories have endorsed the agenda or actions of any institution, group, or other activity. They are simply signers of this petition to the government of the United States, as written.

9. Why was the review article published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons?

The authors chose to submit this article for peer-review and publication by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons because that journal was willing to waive its copyright and permit extensive reproduction and distribution of the article by the Petition Project.

10. Why is the Petition Project necessary?

In December 1997, then U. S. Vice-President Al Gore participated in a meeting in Kyoto, Japan during which he signed a treaty to ration world energy production based upon fear of human-caused global warming. This treaty was not, however, presented to the United States Senate for ratification.

Since before that Kyoto meeting and continuing to the present day, Mr. Gore and his supporters at the United Nations and elsewhere have claimed that the “science is settled” – that an overwhelming “consensus” of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement.

Moreover, for more than 10 years these proponents of world energy rationing have consistently argued that, in view of this claimed scientific “consensus,” no further discussion of the science involved in this issue is warranted before legislative action is taken to heavily tax, regulate, and ration hydrocarbon energy.

Since, however, these claims were not successful in convincing the United States government to initiate energy rationing, the United Nations has held a series of international meetings attended by a central group of about 600 scientists, some additional scientists outside of this group, and a large number of political and bureaucratic representatives – approximately 2,000 in all. The United Nations has also hosted larger meetings, including many non-scientist participants from environmental, business, and political organizations.

During and after each of these meetings, there have been further publicity campaigns claiming that the “science is settled” – that the “consensus” of scientists in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is so overwhelming that further examination of the science is unnecessary.

Realizing, from discussions with their scientific colleagues, that this claimed “consensus” does not exist, a group of scientists initiated the Petition Project in early 1998. Thousands of signatures were gathered in a campaign during 1998-1999. Between 1999 and 2007, the list of petition signatories grew gradually, without a special campaign. Between October 2007 and March 2008, a new campaign for signatures was initiated. The majority of the current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after October 2007. The original review article that accompanied the petition effort in 1998-1999 was replaced in October 2007 with a new review incorporating the research literature up to that date.

The renewed petition campaign in 2007 was prompted by an escalation of the claims of “consensus,” release of the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” by Mr. Al Gore, and related events. Mr. Gore’s movie, asserting a “consensus” and “settled science” in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore’s movie contains many very serious incorrect claims, which no informed, honest scientist could endorse.

The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded. In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries.

As Professor Seitz states, in his Petition Project letter which speaks of this impending threat to all humanity, “It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.”

The Petition Project is a means by which those citizens are offering that advice.

Note the following regarding the OLD petition:

“The renewed petition campaign in 2007 was prompted by an escalation of the claims of “consensus,” release of the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” by Mr. Al Gore, and related events. Mr. Gore’s movie, asserting a “consensus” and “settled science” in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore’s movie contains many very serious incorrect claims, which no informed, honest scientist could endorse.”

Looks like the petition on display at http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
is pretty current information since your science guy Gore used data from the same time periods to construct his blatantly false movie.

I suggest people read what the other side has to say about the Global Warming Petition Project and let them make up their own mind about a study whose backers include Exxon.

“The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda”
http://tinyurl.com/nh86ap

There are some smart people that post here. I trust they can read both sides and make up there own mind about the “project” you cite. If they choose to agree with you so be it.

These comments make my brain said.

Read the petition that runs counter to your man made global warming insanity here at http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

The reported Exxon connection is also a little suspicious.

Here’s one study that supports the debunking of man made global warming and CO2 being mischaracterized as a toxic gas – http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

what about mosaic the WWW DID NOT EXIST what existed was a mostly text based system which few except people like me used if the federal monies and push to develop mosaic wouldn’t of happened there may not be a WWW. Very very few saw  a potential of use other military, business and nerdy people talking on boards so yes you are wrong do your research on the effect of High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 .

       Wow you can find an idiot who doesn’t believe human activity impacts the planet. I don’t think Nobel will be calling them soon.I am very sorry for you if you actually believe that nothing we do has an adverse effect on the planet and I guess greenhouse gases don’t exist, deforestation doesn’t decrease oxygen while increasing CO2, Feeding cattle feed which they would never eat, emitting countless pollutants from vehicles, factories, etc, all has no effect. And Chernobyl, Bhopal, early use of mercury in mining all have no lasting effects I’m sorry to tell you this put this myth that we can do whatever we want has got to be purged.

Sure..let’s go with it.  Clearly our ‘frumpy academic’ stereotype man would never ever ever wear their alma mater sweatshirt but rather a bow tie with school colors, a crest would be to pretentious. The 20 year old herringbone tweed with elbow patches, a tad frayed to convey that the pursuit of academics outweighs the necessity of updated fashion, a wasted expense. A look that can be completely crafted to give the impression your either an academic OR a starving writer/actor/activist/poet/student traveling around Europe… clearly, a multi-beneficial look meant to confuse those who judge people’s politics by what they wear.

Sure..let’s go with it.  Clearly our ‘frumpy academic’ stereotype man would never ever ever wear their alma mater sweatshirt but rather a bow tie with school colors, a crest would be to pretentious. The 20 year old herringbone tweed with elbow patches, a tad frayed to convey that the pursuit of academics outweighs the necessity of updated fashion, a wasted expense. A look that can be completely crafted to give the impression your either an academic OR a starving writer/actor/activist/poet/student traveling around Europe… clearly, a multi-beneficial look meant to confuse those who judge people’s politics by what they wear.

Does it really matter if he makes money of it that just means he saw the future. I don’t know why the GOP freaks out about trying to protect the planet do they really hate it that much? To me this very much common sense, you but toxic chemicals into the air you effect the quality of air. You put greenhouse gases into the air and it will have an effect denying this is ludicrous how much effect and how soon is debatable that it will have an effect is undeniable. We are 20,000 years out of an ice age which means we are warming there will hills and valleys through this but given empirical data eventually places like Manhattan will be under water and the U.S. will be subtropical it has happened before it will happen again. The question is by how much are we speeding this up and if we can slow it down.The fossil fuels we use so greedily will run no one can contest this the faster we get alternative energy going, the longer these assets will last for all their non energy uses.

Does it really matter if he makes money of it that just means he saw the future. I don’t know why the GOP freaks out about trying to protect the planet do they really hate it that much? To me this very much common sense, you but toxic chemicals into the air you effect the quality of air. You put greenhouse gases into the air and it will have an effect denying this is ludicrous how much effect and how soon is debatable that it will have an effect is undeniable. We are 20,000 years out of an ice age which means we are warming there will hills and valleys through this but given empirical data eventually places like Manhattan will be under water and the U.S. will be subtropical it has happened before it will happen again. The question is by how much are we speeding this up and if we can slow it down.The fossil fuels we use so greedily will run no one can contest this the faster we get alternative energy going, the longer these assets will last for all their non energy uses.

Actually, prior to cars, we burned wood and coal.  This dumped a lot of carbon based smoke in the atmosphere.  Even if anthropogenic warming was occuring,many scientists  concur there is nothing we can do about it.  It is such a scam has been since the ’70′s. We were all going to starve and freeze to death within a few years.  When it didn’t happen, we were all going to burn, now it is “change”.  This will go by like Eugenics, but hopefully without the catastrophic damage to human life.  When those who are so invested in it , such as Gore, change their lifestyles, perhaps I would consider changing mine.  At present too many concerns about how the data was obtained.  The scientific method was tampered with and the way it is being propagandized has me concerned over the validity of the information. 

 Yeah!!! I LOVE that mardec is pulling out a Daily Onion article to bolster the conservative case!!!  Hahahahahaha!!!!!

They’re going up in the rapture, no worries

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

And your religion is Fox News. How can you call a guy with degrees in science an idiot?

Does your brain know what you write?

Sarah Palin the Scientist? Never heard of her. Only heard of Sarah Palin (TM) the screechy voiced politician.

Why is climate change a political thing?  Our climate is changing.  A nitwit can see that.  The real question is did this come from natural climate changes which have occurred throughout the history of earth as best we can tell or are we doing it, our businesses and such.  Well, no, we are not causing it.  We may be contributing to it.  Everything is a political thing.  When I was a a child it was sunny every day during the summer.  If it rained it was a swift shower.  We cannot say that today.  The east coast was just devastated.  There was an earthquake here and a bigger one in Japan and also a tsunami, and a giant earthquake in Haiti, and America helped create the New Orleans disaster by a poor levee system that remains poor.   Is anything happening to the earth?  Huh?  You need to debate it?  Let’s do what we always do as Americans….let’s buy a house by the sea to watch the sunsets and then cry when the next cyclone blows by.  After that we can debate a lot..

Try getting the people from a 3rd world country to consider birth control.  It’s a no,no with their god and a no,no with their tribe, and then we have Anderson Cooper crying for the millions with 10 kids who are starving.  They are also breathing, as you point out.  Perhaps they should not have so many babies?  Just an idea.  There is terrorism too, because we have 10 brothers in one family with no jobs multiplied by millions.  I do not think breathing is causing climate change very much either but it is certainly making earth non-viable for long term use.  However, little will change.  We will talk forever but nothing will change till there are enough disasters to cull the herd.  

Noblejim60 saying watch this before jumping off a barn is not a job. Maybe you can get a real job like Joe The Plumber. Oh yeah forgot he’s not a plumber at all. There’s always your local Walmart. 

you seem to have it all figured out then.

Oh yes, the invisible man in the sky decides the weather. OK.

I love it when liberals pull comments out of their backsides, such as “When nearly 100% of those that fight these facts, are funded by Koch, oil, coal and most related to the ‘tea party” Prove it? If you can’t, you’re a liar!

Charles Payne is one of my favourite people on Fox Business.  Enjoy him immensely.  He usually tells it like it is.

perhaps you didn’t get the memo.  It’s no longer “global warming” – it’s climate change.  I couldn’t read the rest of your rant because it must be pretty dated right? lol

Well I agree with you just a ‘Tax’ is useless…… Lets just say for a second you do believe global warming is a huge problem, big business with lots of cash don’t care, they’ll pay whatever it takes.

The answer is not easy, I don’t claim to have ‘The One and All’ (which sadly many people DO claim giving a bad reputation to the whole idea of solving the problem)

My thoughts, and again I am no expert in solving the issue, just a researcher in data, is to keep improving technology to hopefully bring it to a point where maybe even a solar panel could not only charge a house, but completely charge the car.

There is issues with this idea as well, aka batteries becoming wasted and then what do we do with this toxic waste? But hopefully if technology could get to the point where the output is almost 0 I think it would help. But again – I’m not expert in product innovation, just the general philosophy I do believe in.

Well, we are not going to burn or freeze to death anytime soon. That is quite silly.

Talking about “Prior to cars, we burned wood and coal” is not a relevant argument. We still do burn wood and coal to fuel energy, as well as use cars and planes luxuriously which adds a ton more of carbon into the environment than the entire pre-industrial revolution did with ‘coal and fire’

Also looking at my original statement, it’s not that “More people are living on the earth” but even if ALL the people were burning coal and wood, it’d still be a HUGE increase due to the huge population increase. However, it is more than just wood and coal.

I’d rather be rich than stupid.

What does this have to do with global warming?

Also, did I say scientists are ‘infallible’?  No.  I didn’t.  In fact, if I did say something along those lines, I would be exhibiting my extreme ignorance of the scientific process, considering how brutal and critical the peer review process is.

One of the core principles behind the modern scientific method is falsifiability.  Please look it up.

Thank you sir.  Well said.  It’s really a rather sad state of affairs when people choose to ignore FACTS.  Anyone here who chooses to ignore science needs to just own up to it and stop with these fact-free counter arguments.  Just say, I don’t know enough about science to understand why it is real, whether I like it or not.  And honestly, we’re going to pit Sarah Palin’s non-knowledge against a scientist?  Why would anyone listen to what she says about global warming.  She has never done any research into the subject and only has her narcissism to go on.  Please, for your own sake people, understand that science is real.  Arguing against it only makes you look ignorant, whether you are or not.

Yeah, I got the memo. My reference to an endless gushing of chemically laden gases trapping the sun’s energy in our atmosphere and warming the biosphere was intentional, but wasn’t the central point. You have my sympathy. I know how difficult life can be when one gets so easily ensnared by minutia. I guess no-one is going to answer my question; which I will simplify: How is air pollution a practice worth defending?

Stoneyjack, thank you for that long overdue guffaw. I think your faith in Sarah Palin’s opinion over validated scientific data tells the world exactly where you people stand. LOL, oh man, that was good.

Right, so rather than rely on something that can effectively prove or disprove a theory, you choose to believe what a politician says based on his own interests and the interests of those in the oil industry. Does that sound about right?

Well, when a so-called scientists tries to tell me that it’s a “proven fact” and therefore, discussion closed, that is what REALLY does science a disservice. 

Your esoterical  explanation is all well and good, if that’s what makes you happy.  I’m not so exacting when it comes to the use of the word “belief”.  And if scientists truly are thinking about and perceiving the world which accepts one’s own fallibility and aspires to the honesty to admit error, then we have no problem.  It’s when they try to hide their mistakes as so often happens (e.g. Global Warming studies) and muzzle free thought and inquiry because only THEY have the answer, then they lose me and others like me.

Another point you try to make that “Religion is by its nature conservative and inflexible, trying to set the scripture in stone and then deny any change or interpretation” is also incorrect.  Most people I know do not take the Bible literally and it certainly is open to interpretation which is why there are so many  religious sects within just about any religion I can think of.

??? hmmm.. Strange but easy choice right?

??? hmmm.. Strange but easy choice right?

no one EVERY asks these people (climate “scientists”) about this:.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age 

Seriously.. IF ONE “scientist” can explain how this event happened without any help from US and how at the time, if you can imagine, the people of the region were CERTAIN they were witnessing the end of life as they knew it, then I’ll start getting GREEN AS I CAN ASAP.. till then.. for all of those who HATE HEARING THIS STUFF.. toss that link at them as often as you can till they SHUT UP and start providing ideas on how we will survive the INEVITABLE.. the EARTH CHANGES..WOW..imagine that..

Thanks for the laugh.

I can find 39,000 pseudo Scientist that will say 9/11 was impossible it had to of been done with explosives from inside the building, there was no moon landing, space shuttles are a hoax whatever you want to hear. You have to be a complete idiot to believe that global climate change is a hoax. This planet is always in the middle of Global Climate Change entering or leaving ice-age’s we currently 20,000 years out of an ice age so we are getting warmer eventually to the point of the U.S. being tropical what WE are doing is speeding it up.

Wow. You’re….you’re really not very bright, are you?

I’m looking straight at why the rest of the world hates America.

Scientist have addressed all of those issues. If you think they haven’t, it’s because YOU are the one going NANANANA I CAN’T HEAR YOU, not scientists.

The cause of global warming is the sun in the same way that the cause of drunk driving is the car engine.

lock yourself in a room with nothing but CO2 be sure you let us know how it turns out.

So you think Edward Teller, creator of the hydrogen bomb was a pseudo scientist? Yours is a pseudo argument posted in a pseudo reply and you are very brain washed and ignorant. Your proof for the speeding of the arrival of the glacial period it seems is sorely lacking.

So you think Edward Teller, creator of the hydrogen bomb was a pseudo scientist? Yours is a pseudo argument posted in a pseudo reply and you are very brain washed and ignorant. Your proof for the speeding of the arrival of the glacial period it seems is sorely lacking.

I’d like to see those 39,000 scientists that he’s talking about. Really, I would. Have him produce their names. :-)

“TMP”

No, Dad, he’s a pansy. He’s not good enough to be a daisy to your huckleberry.

This is from the people who created the petition. What did you expect?

This is from the people who created the petition. What did you expect?

What you have is a petition. That’s what you base your argument against scientific evidence. A petition – and not even a good one. There’s no research quoted, no evidence presented, no consensus based on published findings. A petition.

The fact remains: Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. This finding is recognized by the national science academies of ALL the major industrialized countries and is NOT DISPUTED BY ANY SCIENTIFIC BODY OF NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL STANDING.

Lots of people believe we didn’t land on the moon. We did. Lots of people believe 9/11 was a government plot. It wasn’t. People believe Obama wasn’t born in the U.S; he was – and he’s not a socialist, marxist or communist and he’s not anti-American. There is no Santa Claus, evolution is fact, intelligent design is made up – no more truthful than a fairy tale, the Earth revolves around the sun and is not the center of the universe and there global warming is factual and is the result of human activity.

We need to change what we can change based on fact, not petitions and move on, get to the next subject.

The climate change expected by 2100 is about 6 times greater than that experienced during the LIA.
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/little-ice-age-vs-global-warming/

It’s a petition.  That’s it.  You should be put to bed.

Bill Nye is perfectly clear and media people and their deadlines or time limits suck. Make time to say it right. That is important. news is gone in thirty seconds, Our future is forever.

the apostrophe is correct.

You missed the entire point, Valleygirl.

What does race have to do with global warming? That metaphore wasted the limited time Bill Nye had to explain..

You have offered no real substantial proof. Stay up all night and find some or admit you lost this debate.

I’m not debating birth with someone who believes in the stork theory.

Er, no, it’s not. The apostrophe comes before (not after) “tis”, which is short for “it is”.

Currently there are 30,000 per year getting a science related PhD in the United States.  If we look back over 30 years we can easily assume that we have 900,000 people with science related PhD.   That means 1% of people with science related PhD’s say that AGW is “bunk”.
On a similar note 0.1% of scientist believe evolution is “bunk”

Bill Nye the TROLOLOLOLO guy.
I love him so much.
And I understood him completely…so why are Fox’s audience members confused…?
OH YEAH BECAUSE IT’S FOX
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/005/180/fuckthat.jpg?1302809593

Insightful and Sarah Palin should never, ever be in the same sentence.

It’s called erring on the safe side. What would you choose, removing implants from the market in case they caused lupus, or keep them in the market hoping they were safe? Would you rather do drugs hoping scientists are wrong about the danger of drugs, or avoid drugs in case the scientists are right?

Scientists aren’t gods; they make mistakes. The question is, which side would you rather make the mistake on?  Would you rather we played it safe and the human population survived the next millenia, or pray that the scientists are wrong and we burn to death within the century?

LOL!!  I don’t have to call any of those phony Global Warming scientists “idiots”.  They proved it all by themselves!!

Will you still be here to say I told you so? Doubtful.

Like most liberals when you run out of verifiable evidence you deliver an attack in an attempt to cover your weakness. Sorry I didn’t mean to strain your brain out of it’s designed parameters. Maybe if you are going to argue science you should actually learn some first. Science uses evidence and results from experiments to support theories, but you really haven’t got much besides talking points to work with do you?

Keep on keepin’ on Kid.

And the “LOL” shows your level of maturity.

It’s called the E4GM syndrome!!!

Global warming, climate change.It’s solar flares on the sun stupid.These global warming and climate change nuts will change the name to whatever they think can get them taxpayers money.Treat them like stray cats and quit feeding them and they will go away.You don’t see them spending their money on their studies.Enough is enough of global warming and climate change loons.

Wow, people in the a scientific/consumer based society don’t believe in science still…

It’s mind-boggling how people can discredit everything someone says because climate change happens to be a phrase that’s often (but arbitrarily) associated with being liberal.

What you people don’t realize is that, by denying climate change in spite of all the unanimous scientific evidence backing it, you hindering progress towards reversing it and thus, you are actively making the world a worse place.

“After host expresses his skepticism, Nye shoots back by saying “there’s a
lot more science behind” the idea of global warming creating extreme
weather than simply saying “it’s not.””

The day any of these so-called scientists can explain the drastic change in climate prior to humans inhabiting the planet, is the day I’ll begin to take their arguments seriously. Most rational people realize the climate has always changed, and will continue to change, whether humans are here or not. You can’t realistically begin the debate at the beginning of the industrialized age and ignore prior climate change.  

“Er, no it’s not.” 

YOU are wrong Ian. There is absolutely no steadfast rule in contemporary writing as where to place the apostrophe. Some use it before the abbreviated word and some use the apostrophe after. Was I steadfastly supposed to put “it” at the end of that sentence? No. Because, the same rule applies. It is all about writing style and communicating a point. No rules.

mardec, if a scientist ever told you they’ve gotten to the point of something being a “proven fact” you can be sure he/she is not really a true scientist. Nothing is “proven” using science. Even gravity is still considered a “theory.” Scientists merely test a theory and, even if it’s replicated 1,000 times, it’s still considered “not disproven.” Using the scientific method, every single theory is impossible to definitively prove.

This is in stark contrast to the Religious-right’s tendency to believe everything as fact if it’s in a book written thousands of years ago by guys who tended to drink a lot of wine (and we all know how drunk people tell accurate stories).

Totally bogus headline. Shame on you, Mediaite.

Nye’s rather elliptical remarks were somewhat confusing, in that he started his little discursion without enough time to bring the idea home. Since he was about halfway through building his analogy when his segment ended, of course it was confusing.

The host did not, IMO, imply that people were being confused by the facts.

This warming sequence is different than previous warming sequences. It’s an unnatural event.

But your criticism is that the fact that warming has happened before means that what we’re experiencing now is, ipso facto, not caused by man?

That makes no sense.

you are right, two top best seller book from a lower level education woman that don’t measure much for your so call well educated level like 57 states or corpseman. 50 states & corpsman Mr loud mouth in chief.
ghost writer ? that is bill ayer & on Obama’s book that hardly any one talk about Audacity of hope , Dream from my friend far Left…..what a joke….

lol

All you’ve got is two speaking gaffes.  I guaran-damn-tee you Palin has said stupider things.  Use the googles.

 If you pay them they will come

         Edward Teller is a physicist not a CLIMATOLOGIST (kind of like
having your Psychiatrist do a heart transplant)   It is obvious the
amount of scientific knowledge you have could fit in a  thimble or you
would know EVERY major scientific organization barring the idiots you
found and except Edward Teller who was near the end of his life so
probably not thinking at the level he was at the time of the Manhattan
Project.
       To get 39,000 scientist first the Quacks that believe
any looney theory next use deep pockets to give research grants and
they say what you want.
   You only need to look back at all the
scientists, doctors, etc. the tobacco industry hired to say there was no
link between cancer and cigarettes and they already new for a fact
there was so they hired scientist to lie.
   What corporations have
some of  the deepest pockets? Energy companies so you are genuinely
naive if you believe they aren’t paying these scientist.

1)The Earth’s atmosphere (78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen “Symmetric gases”) , 1% trace gases methane, carbon monoxide,carbon dioxide, ozone, etc.  and they contribute  to changes in the Earth’s climate.
  2) CO2 is by definition a greenhouse gas based on its absorption spectrum and dipole moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
   3)A simple blackbody physics calculation will tell you that without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be 33°C colder than it is
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lan/globalwarming/greenhouse.pdf
  4)the planet absorbs as much (slightly more) CO2 as it emits, and adding carbon to the system which has been trapped in fossil fuels for millions of years is what’s causing the atmospheric concentration to increase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
                               32 national science academies support ACC
        A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
    1) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC  outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
   2) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researcher

Edward Teller is a terrible example to use as a demonstration of an objective scientist, in any event. He was the primary inspiration for Dr. Strangelove. He was also ostracized from the scientific community after participating in the kangaroo court that brought down Dr. Robert Oppenheimer. He also claimed he was “The only victim of Three Mile Island,” since he had a heart attack when he saw that “left wingers” were using what happened there to question the safety of nuclear power. Teller was a freak driven by his own need for recognition and stature, not the impartial objectivity that science is founded on; and if he ever said it was raining one had better look for one’s self rather than take his word for it.

Garbage.up up or shut up.

“TMP”

Your assumptions lack any proof what so ever, and so does the THEORY of man made climate change. How many quacks did it take to start that hoax. If you read – and I can tell you didn’t – the petition was started by a scientist and the signers all did so voluntarily = no compensation was given to them for signing. Your  accusations are amusing but ultimately display your naivete since you got taken in by a bunch of liars and frauds. It has been proven multiple times that this is a hoax, yet you still believe in it and rabidly defend it. The fact you posted your reply at approximately 04:00 means you are working the night shift over at one of Mr. Soros propaganda organs, or you are just an insomniac looking for something to do. Throwing every single thing at me including corporate collusion is very nice, but ineffectual since none of that applies to the subject under discussion.

As far as your OPINION of Edward Teller is concerned, I am sure that you are merely speculating about his thinking since you neither knew the man, nor would you understand that physics is the basis for nearly every interaction between the types of matter that exist in the universe. He understood that, and that is why he was able to create the Hydrogen Bomb which was much more powerful than the Atom Bomb he worked on during the Manhattan Project. I don’t expect you to understand this but nuclear particle physics are at work in EVERYTHING. It is the science of how matter behaves in relation to the universe. That is how he conceived and developed the modern thermonuclear device. That is also how he understood that the atmospheric interactions between the compounds that make up the atmosphere and the compounds known as greenhouse gases, you know, methane and that evil Co2 you guys are always screaming about, (while you exhale it). Should someone propose that shouting about climate change is changing the climate since matter cannot be destroyed? That makes as much sense as believing in this hoax that mankind is responsible for the next ice age. The earth’s axis will shift again and it will bring on a drastic change in the climate just as it has every time there has been a major shift in the climate causing the glaciation known commonly as an ice age. Are you saying that man’s activities are forcing changes in the alignment of the Earth’s axis?

I suppose next you will suggest that we need to find a cattle feed that does not lead to cow farts.

Go back to school Snake5875, and this time pay attention in geology class.

All of your academicians aside, do you really know what produces the global glaciation of Earth? Well, geologists do. The Earth’s axis shifts every year, which is why we have a climate change called the seasons. Every Ice Age has been preceeded by an even greater shift of the axis and that is what causes the periods of global glaciation, and it has happened on a cyclic basis long before man existed on this planet. Did the cooking fires of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon cause climate change? Maybe it was mastodons expelling methane from their hairy asses?

You really need to provide some compelling evidence that overwhelms the shift of the axis as a plausible cause of global climate change. So far with the manipulated data and wishful thinking of your academicians you have not refuted the real cause of this phenomenon. Theory and speculations based on cooked data are just that – when presented to the public as a fact, that is a HOAX.

Some don’t seem to comprehend that the argument isn’t “man creates climate change.” Obviously the climate has always fluctuated. The argument is that human activity has both accelerated and mutated the  effects of natural processes. Every year we dump well over 23,000,000 metric tonnes of extra CO2 into the atmosphere, not accounted for by natural activity …year after year, decade after decade. This doesn’t even consider of the sulfates, mercury, carcinogens and all of the other stuff we are poisoning our atmosphere with. When those who are in denial bring up the emissions of volcanic activity etc., they are right in saying that those events affect climate change. Yet, they fail to consider that those activities are sporadic and still produce much effect, while our activities are regular and unceasing and do not allow the intervals for the planet to process and filter in the same way that nature does. The central question to this debate is: what are the effects of widespread, regular human activity in a matrix where everything that occurs affects everything else? When we add the massive deforestation that we are also responsible for into the mix, the effects of both natural and man-made phenomena are amplified as the flora that converts CO2 into Oxygen is greatly reduced on the global scale. When we destroy Nature, we can’t blame Her for the effects we are experiencing. None of these things happen in isolation. In order to understand the effects we foist onto our environment one has to be able to assimilate a holistic image of our activities in relation to it. 

Yes I am aware of the load of Co2 we as humans put in the atmosphere, but it has been proven that the oceans absorb much of that Co2. The sun and the shift of the axis drive the kind of climate change you guys are attributing to mankind – that is fact. What your side is proposing is speculation until it happens. Unless you have done something I am unaware of, human beings are part of nature too. We happen to have the status we do because of our brain and ability to put our thoughts into action. None of that has any global effect regardless of what you say to the contrary. People have been burning wood and coal for heat and to cook with for thousands of years, which has had no climatological effect whatsoever. Now you guys come along and with your measurement instrumentation decide we are going to make the planet unlivable. What you are forgetting is that the Earth cleans itself. When methane was a large part of the earth’s atmosphere, what caused that to change into a breathable atmosphere? Can you honestly tell me how that happened? Millions of years ago when that was the way the planet was, what caused the change of climate that made it possible to sustain animal and plant life?

Another thing you seem to overlook in your headlong pursuit is that even the most powerful force mankind has cannot affect the planet or the climate on a scale large enough to cause the kind of change you insist we are causing just by existing here on this planet. Unless you are talking about a total annihilation scenario where a large scale exchange of thermonuclear detonations occurring simultaneously as in the fear of the cold war era, then we do not have the power to change the climate in any substantial way.

Earth does shift on it’s axis and sun flares do affect the Earth. No-one is arguing with those straw men. They always have occurred and had their effect and yet life thrived  on this planet for billions of years. They are not the reason the planet is dying. There is a synergistic effect and man-made CO2 is a big variable in that synergy. It isn’t an “either/or” argument. The easiest aspects of the synergy to measure and corroborate are man made. Too much CO2 becomes toxic to humans when it replaces oxygen just like too much H2O causes “drowning.” We can’t live without H2O either. Heck, we’re mostly made up of water and yet, when there is too much, whaddaya know, …we die. Besides, the concern with CO2 is that it is a greenhouse gas. Humans pump an additional 23,000,000 metric tonnes of it into the atmosphere, yearly, while simultaneously deforesting the planet …thus imposing a greater demand on the planet’s ability to convert CO2 into oxygen… while simultaneously depopulating and de-oxygenating the marine habitat ..by far, the largest community of life, on this planet. As one can surmise, life isn’t as simple as simpletons like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh would have their “ditto-heads” believe.

Here’s a small percentage of the information that’s widely available:
(you have a questionalble petition)

Stanford University, Stanford Solar
Center

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-ts.pdf

Goddard Institute of Space Studies

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/

National Aeronautics and Space
Administration

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html

National Climate Data Center

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats_sup.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/6

United Nations Environment Program

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/science-technology/a-13-2007-02-05-voa9.html

American Geophysical Union

http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

American Meteorological Society

http://ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html

Environmental Protection Agency

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Overview

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

       Edward Teller being a Nuclear physicist by the Jimmy Carter was one also does not impact him not being a climatologist understanding one field with brilliance does not make you expert in all .
       If CO2 is so benign lock yourself in a sealed room full of it make sure to let us know how it turns out.  
      Signing something voluntarily does not equate to not being on the company pay role.How many scientist in varying fields are employed by coal, oil, natural gas, steel. literally any company that would be impacted green laws? They all have a vested interest so your argument is mute.
       Now as humans are involved in epic deforestation and by the way as a species we never deforested as much per day as we do now so not only do we increase CO2 but we decrease it’s absorption rate The arrogance to believe we can do whatever we want pollute, burn, destroy and NEVER pay for it.We also increase methane levels by factory farming livestock(feeding corn to beef). The recent FAO report entitled Livestock’s long shadow, noted “Directly and indirectly, through grazing and through feedcrop production, the livestock sector occupies about 30 percent of the ice-free terrestrial surface on the planet. In many situations, livestock are a major source of land-based pollution, emitting nutrients and organic matter, pathogens and drug residues into rivers, lakes and coastal seas. Animals and their wastes emit gases, some of which contribute to climate change, as do land-use changes caused by demand for feedgrains and grazing land. Livestock shape entire landscapes and their demands on land for pasture and feedcrop production modify and reduce natural habitats” (Steinfeld 06).
     Saying the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere will be too low ignores the fact that things found in trace amounts often will have disastrous effects if increased. The idea that the ocean will pick up the increase in volume from deforestation and CO2 emission is wishful thinking. the Oceans are even changing Jellyfish blooms of  historic size and many in seas they have NEVER been found in as jellies contribute little and take a lot it this is dire.
  Although CO2 isn’t the worst greenhouse gas  NO2 and Methane are far worse and we are releasing them also.
       Where were all these anti ACC scientist for the years it existed before carbon tax was suggested it was just another scientific theory like relativity nobody really cared, it cost nothing and maybe some hippies are going to drive economy cars and if this was still so you would not be arguing the point.Whereas a while back some taxonomists were suggesting a reclassification reclassifying birds as reptiles I was very vocal on my dissent not because it would cost money but because they were wrong just as the anti ACC crowd are. So where the ACC scientist started their judgements on science the  anti ACC crowd started when there would be a cost.

“No-one is arguing with those straw men.” Do you know what a straw man is? Your use of it here indicates that you believe the periodic cycles of axis orientation change and solar activity – solar flares, coronal mass ejections, sunspots and the like – are straw men when it comes to affecting the global climate. How can I seriously entertain the rest of your argument?

“Too much CO2 becomes toxic to humans when it replaces oxygen just like too much H2O causes “drowning.”"

Has this ever happened in the past or does it have the potential to happen in the future? This is doubtful, since the planet has had much higher concentrations of Co2 in geologic history, and during these periods of high Co2 concentration not all life on earth was extinguished. The fossil record and ice cores as well as other sources have proven beyond doubt that this is the case.

Where do you get that 23 million metric ton figure? How much of that is absorbed by plant life and the oceans? Until you can quantify how much remains as free Co2, this argument is a straw man, (and incidentally the correct use of that term).

While the oceans and plants absorb Co2, what do they release as a result of the processing of Co2? Tell me, just what is the end product of these two mechanisms? It apparently is how oxygen is generated for us to breathe as well as all animal life on our planet. You have to give the planet credit for doing what it does, but your companions never account for the natural healing process the earth has had ongoing for millions of years.

 The job of science is to disprove theories. CAGW is just a weak hypothesis and it is readily disproved.

In case anyone is in doubt and thinks that
scientists may have not been doing their job of disproving CAGW, here’s a
helpful list of  just a few who refute / dissent the CAGW hypothesis from various standpoints (note a number are UN-IPCC participants!):

Country ref Christian name SURNAME Qualification Field
Russia 116 Habibullo Abdussamatov Dr Astrophysicist
India 58 Arun D Ahluwalia Dr Geologist
USA 124 Syun-Ichi Akasofu Dr / Prof Geophysicist
Sweden 227 Kjell Aleklett Dr / Prof Physicist
South Africa 75 William J R Alexander Dr / Prof Biosystems Engineer
France 111 Claude Allegre Dr Geophysicist
USA 180 Charles R Anderson Dr Physicist
Australia 233 David Archibald Dr Paleontologist
USA 217 Scott Armstrong Dr Forecasting Expert
India 72 Ritesh Arya Dr Geologist
NZ / USA 148 August H Auer Dr / Prof Atmospheric Scientist
USA 156
Robert H Austin Dr Physicist
USA 92 Dennis T Avery FHI Agricultural Analyst
Canada 28 Tim Ball Dr / Prof Climatologist
USA 106 Robert Balling Dr Climatologist
UK 149 Jack Barret Dr Chemist / Spectroscopist
Italy 187 Franco Battaglia Dr / Prof Chemist
UK 46 David Bellamy Dr Biologist
USA 244 Edward Blick Dr Meteorologist/Engineer
UK 108 Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen Dr Science & Geography
USA 230 Simon Brassell Dr Geologist
USA 70 William M Briggs Dr Climate Statistician
UK 243 John Brignell Dr / Prof Engineer
USA 195 John W Brosnahan Dr Physicist (Research)
USA 113 Reid Bryson (The late) Dr Meteorologist
UK 214 Jim Buckee Dr Astrophysicist (Oxon)
USA 95 Sally Bulinas Dr Astrophysicist
France 127 Nicholas Caillon Dr Geologist
190 Nigel Calder Science Author/Editor
USA 164 Mark L Campbell Dr / Prof Chemist
Australia 57 Bob Carter Dr / Prof Marine Geologist
USA 131 Randy Cerveny Dr / Prof
Meteorology / Geography
Australia 189 Phil Chapman Dr Geophysicist / Astro Eng
USA 24 George V Chilingar Dr Geologist
USA 48 John Christy Dr / Prof Climatologist
Canada 121 Petr Chylek Dr Atmospheric Scientist
USA 109 Ian D Clark Dr Paleoclimatologist & Hydrologist
USA 100 Tim Coleman Dr Atmospheric Scientist
Argentina 53 Rosa Compagnucci Dr Atmospheric Scientist
Canada 107 Paul Copper Dr / Prof Earth Scientist
USA 136 William R Cotton Dr Atmospheric Scientist
UK 2 Richard Courtney Dr Climate & Atmospheric Scientist
Italy 163 Uberto Crescenti Dr / Prof Geologist
UK 173 Javier Cuadros Dr Earth Scientist
USA 133 Joseph D’Aleo MSc Meteorologist
USA 69 Robert E Davis Dr / Prof Climatologist
NZ 237 William de Lange Dr Earth Scientist
USA 138 Robert DeFayette MSc Physical Chemist
NZ 112 Chris DeFreitas Dr Climate Scientist
USA 128 David Deming Dr Geophysicist
Germany 137 Peter Dietze Dipl-Ing
Climate Modeler
Portugal 34 Delgado Domingos Dr / Prof Meteorologist
USA 160 Diane Douglas, Dr Climatologist/Paleoclimatologist
USA 97 Art V Douglas, Art Dr Atmospheric Scientist
USA 55 David H Douglass Dr Physicist – check
USA 176 Paul Drallos Dr Physicist
USA 169 Nicholas Drapela Dr Chemist
USA 226 John (Jr) Droz BSc Physicist
USA 204 Donald DuBois Dr Computer Modeler
NZ 11 Geoffry G Duffy, Dr / Prof Chem / Matls Eng
USA 115 Robert Durrenberger Dr / Prof Climatologist
NZ 234 Denis Dutton Dr / Prof Philosophy
USA 36 Freeman Dyson Dr Physicist
USA 25 Don Easterbrook Dr / Prof Geologist
Russia/USA 119 Michael J Economides Dr / Prof Chemical Engineer
USA 151 Hugh W Ellsaesser Dr Physicist / Meteorologist
Australia 155 Lance Endersbee Dr / Prof Civil Engineer
USA 238 Robert H Essenhigh Dr / Prof Mech Eng/Energy Conservation
Canada 142 Christopher Essex Dr Mathematician – applied
UK 186 John R
Etherington Dr Ecologist
Australia 123 David Evans Dr Mathematician & Engineer
USA 62 John T Everett Dr check
UK 239 Wilson Flood Dr Chemist
USA 56 Gordon J Fulks Dr Physicist
USA 197 Neil Frank Dr Atmospheric Scientist (Huricanes)
USA 8 Oliver W Frauenfeld Dr Climate Scientist
USA 208 Peter Friedman Dr Mechanical Engineer
Denmark 16 Eigil Friis-Christensen Dr Geophysicist
USA 224 Lloyd C Furer Dr Geologist & Meteorologist
Sweden 81 David Gee Dr Geologist
USA 60 Lee C Gerhard Dr Geologist
USA 194 Robert Giegengack Dr Geologist
USA 102 Indur Goklany Dr US delegate on climate
USA 64 Stanley B Goldenberg MSc Atmospheric Scientist
NZ 4 Vincent Gray Dr Physical Chemist
USA 87 Thomas B Gray Tom MSc Meteorologist
Australia 218 Kesten Green Dr Forecating Expert
USA 210 Howard Greyber Dr Astrophysicist
USA 159 Michael Griffin Dr Physicist/Aerospace Eng
Brazil 103 Eugenio Hackbart
Meteorologist
USA 38 William Happer Dr Physicist
USA 139 Ross Hays Meteorologist
USA 22 Klaus P Heiss Dr to check
UK 212 David Henderson Dr / Prof Economist
174 Marc Hendrickx PhD undergrad Geologist
USA 134 Ben Herman Dr Atmospheric Scientist
USA 223 Martin Hertzberg Dr Physical Chemist
USA 118 Robert Higgs Dr Economist
Canada 181 Wayne Hocking Dr / Prof Physics
USA 184 Dennis Hollars Dr Astrophysicist
Switzerland 152 Douglas Hoyt check
Canada 221 Neil Hutton Dr Geologist
USA 52 Craig Idso Dr to check
Japan 32 Kiminori Itoh Dr Env Physical Chemist
Russia 5 Yuri Izrael Dr
UK 229 Terri Jackson MSc Physicist
USA 165 Steven M Japar Dr Atmospheric Chemist
Poland 132 Zbigniew Jaworowski Dr Physicist
Sweden 90 Hans Jelbring Dr Climatologist
Australia 241 Dennis Jensen Dr Nuclear Physicist
Sweden 125 Wibjorn Karlen Dr Geologist
USA 3 Richard Keen Dr Climatologist
Australia 59 Aynsley Kellow
Dr / Prof check
South Africa 94 Kelvin Kemm Dr Physicist & Mathematician
Canada 61 Madhav Khandekar Dr Meteorologist
USA 23 Leonard F Khilyuk Dr Geologist
USA 71 Arnold Kling Dr Economist
USA 200 James P Koermer Dr / Prof Atmospheric Scientist
Japan 98 Takeda Kunihiko Dr Science & Technology
Japan 171 Kanya Kusano Dr Physicist
Netherlands 41 Hans H J Labohm Dr Economist
Germany 130 Theodor Landscheidt (The late) Dr Solar Scientist
USA 65 Chris Landsea Dr Atmospheric Scientist
USA 220 Pierre R Latour Dr Chemical Engineer
USA 120 David R Legates Dr Climatologist
USA 35 Jay Lehr Dr Environment/Hydrology
USA 213 Arthur E Lemay BSc Physicist & Comp Systems
France 89 Marcel Leroux Dr Climatologist
USA 33 Richard Lindzen Dr / Prof Atmospheric Scientist
South Africa 29 Philip Lloyd Dr Nuclear Physicist
Germany 219 Gerhard Lobert Dr Physicist
USA 179 Keith Lockitch Dr Physicist
USA 182 Craig
Loehle Dr Environmental Scientist
Italy 183 Luigi Mariani Dr / Prof Meteorologist (Agriculture)
Japan 249 Shigenori Maruyama Dr / Prof Geologist
USA 114 Mike McConnell MSc Geologist & Hydrologist
UK 150 Alister McFarquhar Dr Economist (International)
Canada 50 Steve McIntyre BSc Computer Analyst
Canada 49 Ross McKitrick Dr / Prof Economist (Environmental)
Australia 205 John McLean Climate Data Analyst
Canada 209 Ian McQueen Chemical Engineer
Canada 196 Owen McShane Dr Economist
USA 74 D Bruce Merrifield Dr / Prof Organic Chemist
USA 178 Seymour Merrin Dr FGSA Geologist
USA 12 Patrick Michaels Dr Climatologist / Ecol
Canada 37 Fred Michel Dr Paleo-climatologist
UK 170 Grant Miles Dr & FRIC Chemist
USA 166 Timothy R Minnich MAMS (ret) Atmospheric Scientist
Hungary 91 Ferenc Miskolzi Dr Atmospheric Physicist
Norway 147 Asmunn Moene Dr Meteorologist
USA 122 H Michael Mogil MSc
Meteorologist
USA 157 Gregory Moore Dr Aerospace Engineer
UK 225 Patrick Moore Dr Ecologist
UK 77 Dick Morgan Dr / Cdr Climatologist
Sweden 63 Nils-Axel Mörner Dr Geologist & Physicist
USA 185 R John Muench Dr / Prof Chemist
Canada 6 Stephen Murgatroyd Dr Research Methodologist
Canada 54 Tad Murty Dr / Prof Oceanographer
Mexico 175 Nasif Nahle Dr Biologist
NZ 207 Muriel Newman Dr Mathematician
Canada 141 David Nowell MSc Meteorologist
USA 247 Jim O’Brien Dr Climatologist
Holland 241 Peter R Odell Dr / Prof Energy Studies
Israel 86 Nathan Paldor Dr / Prof Meteorologist
Australia 78 Garth W Paltridge Dr / Prof Atmospheric Physicist
Canada 30 Tim Patterson Dr / Prof Geologist / P-climatologist
USA 83 Theodore G Pavlopoulos Dr Physicist & Chemist
USA 82 James A Peden MSc Physicist & Mathematician
UK 93 Benny Peiser Dr Social Anthropologist FRAS
USA 148 Al Pekarek Dr / Prof Geologist
(Earth/Atmosphere)
USA 110 Roger (Snr) Pielke Dr Climatologist
Australia 20 Ian Plimer Dr / Prof Geologist
Canada 85 Brian R Pratt Dr / Prof Paleontologist
Canada 140 Andreas Prokoph Dr Earth Scientist
Australia 248 Art Raiche Dr Geophysicist (CSIRO)
USA 208 John Reinhard Dr (MACS) Biologist & Biochemist
France 68 Paul Reiter Dr / Prof Entomology & Tropical Dis.
USA 99 Arthur Robinson Dr / Prof Chemist
Netherlands 153 Arthur Rorsch Dr / Prof Molecular Genetics
172 Mark Rose Dr Chemist (Surface)
USA 215 Caleb Stewart Rossiter Dr / Prof Statistical Modeler
Finland 191 Kenneth Rundt Dr Physical Chemist
USA 187 W M Schaffer Dr / Prof Ecologist
USA / Norway 192 Jack Schmitt Geologist / Astronaut
USA 105 David W Schnare Dr Environmental Scientist
Holland 201 Chris Schoneveld Dr Geologist / Geophysicist
USA 222 Joel Schwartz MSc Planetary Scientist
USA 167 Robert L Scotto MAMS (ret) Atmospheric
Scientist
Norway 31 Tom Segalstad Dr Geologist / Geochemist
USA 79 Frederick Seitz (The late) Dr Physicist
Russia 245 Vladimir Shaidurov Dr Physicist & Mathematician
Israel 13 Nir Shaviv Dr Astrophysicist
USA 9 Thomas P Sheahen Dr Physicist
USA 27 Joanne Simpson Dr Atmospheric Scientist
USA 42 S Fred Singer Dr Climatologist
Holland 104 Hajo Smit MSc Environmental Scientist
Canada 143 L Graham Smith Dr / Prof Geography
Australia 193 G LeBlanc Smith Dr Research Scientist (CSIRO)
US 198 Joe Sobel Dr Meteorologist
USA 15 Willie Soon Dr Astrophysicist
Russia 10 Oleg Sorochtin Dr To check
USA 47 Roy Spencer Dr Climatologist / Meteorologist
NZ 177 Jim Sprott Dr Chemist/Forensics
USA 232 Leighton Steward MSc Geologist
Sweden 250 Peter Stilbs Dr Physical Chemist
Australia 7 David Stockwell Dr Eco-modeler
USA 216 Alex Storrs Dr Physicist
UK 88 Philip Stott Dr / Prof Biogeography
Denmark 17 Henrik
Svensmark Dr / Prof Physicist
Canada 66 Mitchell Taylor Dr Biologist
Netherlands 39 Hendrik Tennekes Dr Atmospheric Scientist
USA 40 John Theon Dr Climatologist / Tech
USA 168 Frank Tipler Dr / Prof Mathematical Physicist
Argentina 84 Eduardo Tonni Dr Paleontologist
USA 162 Anastasios Tsonis Dr Geophysicist
Spain 158 Anton Uriarte Dr Physical Geography
USA 129 Brian G Valentine Dr Computer Modeler (Complex Sys)
NZ 145 Gerrit G Van der Lingen Dr / Prof Geologist / Paleoclimatologist
Canada 144 Cornelis van Kooten Dr / Prof Economist Env/Climate Change
USA 18 Larry Vardiman Dr / Prof Atmospheric Scientist
USA 154 William W Vaughan Dr Atmospheric Scientist
Canada 14 Jan Veizer Dr / Prof Geologist
USA 240 Chris Walcek Dr / Prof Atmospheric Scientist
USA 235 Fred Ward Dr Meteorologist
USA 1 Charles Wax Dr Climatologist
Germany 135 Gerd-Rainer Weber Dr Meteorologist
USA 117 Edward J Wegman Dr
Statistician
USA 80 Leonard Weinstein Dr check
UK 45 David Whitehouse Dr Astronomer
UK 236 Stephen Wilde FRMS Meteorologist
Australia 231 Ian Wilson Dr Astronomer & Analyst
UK 203 Duncan Wingham Dr / Prof Climate Physicist
Finland 76 Boris Winterhalter Dr Marine Geologist
USA 19 David Wojick Dr Philosophy of Science
USA 126 Frederick Wolf Dr / Prof Physicist
USA 228 George T Wolff Dr Atmospheric Scientist
UK 199 James Woudhuysen Dr / Prof Forecasting & Innovation
USA 211 Lynwood Yarbrough Dr Biochemist
Hungary 44 Miklos Zagoni Dr Physicist / Env
Italy 21 Antonio Zichichi Dr / Prof Physicist
USA 202 Jeff Zweerink Dr Astronomer
Canada 316 Francis T Manns Dr Geologist
USA 303 Oliver K Manuel Dr / Prof Nuclear Chemist
Finland 251 Jarl R. Ahlbeck Dr Chemical Engineer
Australia 287 Don Aitkin Dr / Prof Mathematics (Canberra Uni)
Spain 297 José Ramón Arévalo Dr / Prof Ecologist
USA 255 Paul
Berenson Dr Physicist
Netherlands 266 Peter Bloemers Dr / Prof Biochemist
USA 306 Danny Braswell Dr Alabama University
Norway 252 Pal Brekke Dr Solar Physicist
UK 261 Piers Corbyn MSc Astrophysicist
USA 291 Jonathan DuHamel MSc Geologist
Canada 263 Cal Evans Dr Geochemist
USA 312 Michael F Farona Dr Chemist & Biochemist
USA 318 Jon Hartzler Dr / Prof Science Professor
USA 307 Justin Hnilo Dr Alabama University
Germany 309 Heinz Hug Dr Lecturer, Wiesbaden,
Netherlands 297 Rob Kouffeld Dr / Prof Energy Science
USA 292 John Lott Dr Economist
Canada 316 Francis T Manns Dr Geologist
Netherlands 261 Rob Meleon Dr / Prof Molecular Science
USA 304 Lubos Motl Dr Former Harvard Physicist
Australia 289 David Packham Res’ch Fellow Geography and Environment
USA 290 Norman J Page Dr Geologist
Spain 298 Maria Eugenia Peréz Dr / Prof Geographer
Netherlands 289 Harry Priem Dr / Prof Planetary & Isotope
Geology
Australia 310 John J Ray Dr Psychologist / Sociologist
Netherlands 302 Olaf Schuiling Dr / Prof Geochemistry
USA 305 Joel Schwartz MSc Planetary Science
NZ 281 Ron Smith Dr / Prof (Em) Chemist,
USA 302 Brad Sussman AMS Meteorologist
USA 294 Elwynn Taylor Dr / Prof Meteorologist/Climatologist
Netherlands 295 Dick Thoenes Dr / Prof (Em) Chemical Process Engineering
Netherlands 287 Bas van Geel Dr / Prof Paleo-ecology
Netherlands 288 Jan Pieter van Wolfswinkel Dr / Prof (Em) Mechanical Engineering
USA 320 William L Wells Dr / Prof Chemist
USA 299 Bruce West Dr U.S Army Chief Scientist
USA 315 Terry Wimberley Dr / Prof Ecologist
Canada 319 Bruno Wiskel BSc Geology
USA 314 Robert Woock MSc Geophysicist
Germany 321 Hartwig Voltz Dr Geophysicist
Germany 322 Ulrich Berner Dr Geologist
Sweden 323 Göran Ahlgren Dr / Prof Organic Chemist, Stockholm
NZ 324 Jock Allison Dr Agricultural
Research
Denmark 325 Bjarne Andresen, Dr / Prof Physicis

buting authors and reviewers of the IPCC’s
“Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis” were polled with a six-question survey on
climate change. Fifty-four IPCC scientists completed the survey, including
several of the most prominent global warming alarmists and several IPCC
lead authors. Only 20% of those surveyed said that human activity is the principal driver of climate change.
When asked about the ideal climate, only 14% said that the ideal
climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that
there is no such thing as an ideal climate. So if there’s no agreement on what the target climate should be, what
precisely is the point of taking action on global warming? What is the
climatic goal at which we are aiming?
Forty-four percent didn’t think that the current global climate was
unprecedentedly warm.

http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-08-2007/0004701174&EDATE

IPCC Scientists Challenge Al Gore’s View of Global Warming Consensus
http://newsbusters.org/node/13833

Japanese IPCC scientists says global warming “worst scientific scandal”
http://orangepunch.ocregister.com/2008/06/18/japanese-ipcc-scientists-says-global-warming-worst-scientific-scandal/3343/

How IPCC scientists interfere with publication of
inconvenient scientific
resultshttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/21/gaming-the-peer-review-system-ipcc-scientists-behaving-badly/

80% of the IPCC membership have no dealing with the climate as part of their academic
studies.
“First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged ‘Consensus’
on Global Warming; Poll Exposes Disagreement and Confusion Among United
Nations Scientists”

Each of the 345 U.S. scientists listed as contributing authors and reviewers of the IPCC’s
“Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis” were polled with a six-question survey on
climate change. Fifty-four IPCC scientists completed the survey, including
several of the most prominent global warming alarmists and several IPCC
lead authors. Only 20% of those surveyed said that human activity is the principal driver of climate change.
When asked about the ideal climate, only 14% said that the ideal
climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that
there is no such thing as an ideal climate. So if there’s no agreement on what the target climate should be, what
precisely is the point of taking action on global warming? What is the
climatic goal at which we are aiming?
Forty-four percent didn’t think that the current global climate was
unprecedentedly warm.

http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-08-2007/0004701174&EDATE

IPCC Scientists Challenge Al Gore’s View of Global Warming Consensus
http://newsbusters.org/node/13833

Japanese IPCC scientists says global warming “worst scientific scandal”
http://orangepunch.ocregister.com/2008/06/18/japanese-ipcc-scientists-says-global-warming-worst-scientific-scandal/3343/

How IPCC scientists interfere with publication
of
inconvenient scientific
results
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/21/gaming-the-peer-review-system-ipcc-scientists-behaving-badly/

What is also excluded from the modeling and their analysis is the fact that we are deforesting the planet at the rate of approximately 18 million acres per year which in itself is having a considerable effect on the conversion of CO2 to free oxygen (decreasing it). Also down played was the fact that solar energy heating the ocean (el Nino years) causes increased release of CO2 from the oceans, and possibly that and the tectonic activity causes release of frozen methyl hydrates. Methane from that is 20 times more powerful molecule for molecule than CO2 in causing GHG effect…..

Just a thought – my 2 cents.

frozen methyl hydrate

“Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful,” George E. P. Box
 
Correlation does not mean causation!

Not to mention that the correlation is weak with a R^2 of less than 50% and CO2 ppm is cyclical in nature with a current downturn in process, thus leading to a decreased temperature. We are currently at the nominal temperature for the last 430,000 years based on the Vostok Petit Ice Core Data.

Pretty much the same as how ‘Al Gore’ and ‘sincerity’ should never be in the same sentence

There is a difference between a scientific theory and scientific facts. If the science was really as “settled” as good ol Al proclaimed it to be, why on earth have scientists continued to study the causes of climate change-and produce papers that indicate that humanity is not the only thing affecting our atmosphere?

For example, here’s some research done recently by Susan Solomon, Karen Rosenlof, Robert Portmann, and John Daniel, all of
the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) in Boulder, Colo.; Sean
Davis and Todd Sanford, NOAA/ESRL and the Cooperative Institute for
Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado; and
Gian-Kasper Plattner, University of Bern, Switzerland.

“The research, led by one of the world’s top climate scientists, suggests
that almost one-third of the global warming recorded during the 1990s
was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere, not human
emissions of greenhouse gases. A subsequent decline in water vapour
after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise,
the scientists add.” UK Guardian, Friday 29 January 2010

“Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the
surface. But this is different — it’s a thin wedge of the upper
atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we
didn’t expect,” says Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist and first
author of the study.”

“An increase in stratospheric water vapor in the 1990s likely had the
opposite effect of increasing the rate of warming observed during that
time by about 30 percent, the authors found.” (Science Daily, Feb 1 2010)

And most recently CERN produced a paper on it’s “CLOUD” project. The CLOUD experiment involves an interdisciplinary team of scientists
from 18 institutes in 9 countries, comprised of atmospheric physicists,
solar physicists, and cosmic-ray and particle physicists. From THEIR press release:

“Based on the first results from CLOUD, it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be SUBSTANTIALLY REVISED (emphasis mine) since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours (sulfuric acid and ammonia) and water alone. It is now URGENT (emphasis mine) to identify the additional nucleating vapours, and whether their source is mainly natural or from human sources.”

Seems to me that massive amounts of funding are being wasted, along with the time and efforts of some of the world’s TOP scientists on researching exactly HOW our atmosphere really works…when Al Gore had it all figured out all those years ago. And yet, the more REAL science they do, the more they find out, and the more they have to “correct” their climate models, and revise their climate predictions.

There is a difference between a scientific theory and scientific facts. If the science was really as “settled” as good ol Al proclaimed it to be, why on earth have scientists continued to study the causes of climate change-and produce papers that indicate that humanity is not the only thing affecting our atmosphere?

For example, here’s some research done recently by Susan Solomon, Karen Rosenlof, Robert Portmann, and John Daniel, all of
the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) in Boulder, Colo.; Sean
Davis and Todd Sanford, NOAA/ESRL and the Cooperative Institute for
Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado; and
Gian-Kasper Plattner, University of Bern, Switzerland.

“The research, led by one of the world’s top climate scientists, suggests
that almost one-third of the global warming recorded during the 1990s
was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere, not human
emissions of greenhouse gases. A subsequent decline in water vapour
after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise,
the scientists add.” UK Guardian, Friday 29 January 2010

“Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the
surface. But this is different — it’s a thin wedge of the upper
atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we
didn’t expect,” says Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist and first
author of the study.”

“An increase in stratospheric water vapor in the 1990s likely had the
opposite effect of increasing the rate of warming observed during that
time by about 30 percent, the authors found.” (Science Daily, Feb 1 2010)

And most recently CERN produced a paper on it’s “CLOUD” project. The CLOUD experiment involves an interdisciplinary team of scientists
from 18 institutes in 9 countries, comprised of atmospheric physicists,
solar physicists, and cosmic-ray and particle physicists. From THEIR press release:

“Based on the first results from CLOUD, it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be SUBSTANTIALLY REVISED (emphasis mine) since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours (sulfuric acid and ammonia) and water alone. It is now URGENT (emphasis mine) to identify the additional nucleating vapours, and whether their source is mainly natural or from human sources.”

Seems to me that massive amounts of funding are being wasted, along with the time and efforts of some of the world’s TOP scientists on researching exactly HOW our atmosphere really works…when Al Gore had it all figured out all those years ago. And yet, the more REAL science they do, the more they find out, and the more they have to “correct” their climate models, and revise their climate predictions.

From an article on geocraft.com using the data from the: Historical Isotopic Temperature Record from the Vostok Ice Core

“Historically, glacial cycles of about 100,000 years are interrupted by
brief warm interglacial periods– like the one we enjoy today. Changes
in both temperatures and CO2 are considerable and generally
synchronized, according to data analysis from ice and air samples collected
over the last half century from permanent glaciers in Antarctica and other
places. Interglacial periods of 15,000- 20,000 years provide a brief respite
from the normal state of our natural world– an Ice Age Climate. Our present
interglacial vacation from the last Ice Age began about 18,000 years ago.”

“Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2
concentrations is assumed from the ice core data to be about 300 ppm. Other
studies using proxy such as plant stomata, however,
indicate this may closer to the average value, at least over the
last 15,000 years. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380
ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our
atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable
effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period
460 million years ago CO2 concentrations
were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are
today.”

“Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures,
or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being
debated today. Interestingly, CO2
lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes–
confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One
thing is certain– earth’s climate has been warming and cooling on it’s
own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year
18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age,
we may be due– some say overdue– for return to another icehouse
climate!”

Destroying the economy is not the “safe side.” Growing the already-too-big government is not the “safe side.” Saying “we’ll see what happens in regards to the environment (and not baselessly attribute natural disasters, etc., ) since only the alarmists and political opportunists are pushing us to DO much of anything at all while the real science tells us there’s not much we even CAN do even IF there is a warming problem” is the “safe” and only intelligent way — unless you’ve got an agenda to push.

Pit Boss, you’re a bigot, and you counter your own stupid argument since alarmist masquerading as scientists, such as Nye, tell us all the time that they’re “proven” all manner of things. Stop living under the rock. Stop getting your “news” from the echo chamber.

From the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism:

FOX NEWS FAR MORE BALANCED IN COVERAGE OF 2008 ELECTION – REST OF MEDIA VERY ONE-SIDED:

The Color of News
October 29, 2008
How Different Media Have Covered the General Election
http://journalism.org/node/13436

FOX statistics
On McCain: 40% negative stories, 22% positive
On Obama: 40% negative stories, 25% positive

Sounds pretty balanced, doesn’t it?

MSNBC statistics
On McCain: **73%** negative
On Obama: **14%** negative

Not so much balance, now is there?

Jon Stewart Debunked: Claim that FOX News Viewers ‘Most Consistently Misinformed’ is ‘False’

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jon-stewart-debunked-claim-that-fox-news-viewers-most-consistently-misinformed-is-false/

Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!)
http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/harvard_study_shows_media_bias_favors_democrats

Pew Survey: Fox News Audience Much More Balanced
http://www.thehotjoints.com/2008/10/06/new-poll-more-democrats-watch-fox-news/

THE GREAT DIVIDE: REPORTERS GIVE DEMS MONEY OVER REPUBLICANS 9 TO 1…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

Not that the facts matter – Fox is still eeeeevil, don’tcha know.

Even though causation has never been scientifically demonstrated. And thus, you show us why alarmists – whose “solutions” to this “problem” all “coincidentally” feed right into their big government ideologies – are rightly considered to be intellectually dishonest tools.

From the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism:

FOX NEWS FAR MORE BALANCED IN COVERAGE OF 2008 ELECTION – REST OF MEDIA VERY ONE-SIDED:

The Color of News
October 29, 2008
How Different Media Have Covered the General Election
http://journalism.org/node/13436

FOX statistics
On McCain: 40% negative stories, 22% positive
On Obama: 40% negative stories, 25% positive

Sounds pretty balanced, doesn’t it?

MSNBC statistics
On McCain: **73%** negative
On Obama: **14%** negative

Not so much balance, now is there?

Jon Stewart Debunked: Claim that FOX News Viewers ‘Most Consistently Misinformed’ is ‘False’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jon-stewart-debunked-claim-that-fox-news-viewers-most-consistently-misinformed-is-false/

Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!)
http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/harvard_study_shows_media_bias_favors_democrats

Pew Survey: Fox News Audience Much More Balanced
http://www.thehotjoints.com/2008/10/06/new-poll-more-democrats-watch-fox-news/

THE GREAT DIVIDE: REPORTERS GIVE DEMS MONEY OVER REPUBLICANS 9 TO 1…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

Not that the facts matter – Fox is still eeeeevil, don’tcha know.

Causation has NEVER been scientifically proven. You’re lying to yourself if you think otherwise.

Chuck, you prove our point about you despicable Lefty trolls, as does the fact that slime like yours gets the “likes.” This comment thread is full of hateful drones.

You didn’t read the article, did you? Or are you just incapable of connecting the painfully obvious dots? Hint: There’s a reason the public is increasingly turning against the global warming agenda pushers, spurring comedically horrible vulgar Al Gore rages on video.

Because that guy’s the one who did the study, right? Oh wait. No. You intellectually dishonest alarmist agenda-pushing political hack.

What a stupid analogy. So… what’s driving the warmth on Mars and the other planets in the solar system?

There’s way less pollution today than 10 years ago, way less than than the decade before, etc. That alarmists like you want more tells us that you’re extremists.

Earth’s got a fever, and mankind’s the disease, eh? Earth’s not the sick one around here. That’d be you lot.

From the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism:

FOX NEWS FAR MORE BALANCED IN COVERAGE OF 2008 ELECTION – REST OF MEDIA VERY ONE-SIDED:

The Color of News
October 29, 2008
How Different Media Have Covered the General Election
http://journalism.org/node/13436

FOX statistics
On McCain: 40% negative stories, 22% positive
On Obama: 40% negative stories, 25% positive

Sounds pretty balanced, doesn’t it?

MSNBC statistics
On McCain: **73%** negative
On Obama: **14%** negative

Not so much balance, now is there?

Jon Stewart Debunked: Claim that FOX News Viewers ‘Most Consistently Misinformed’ is ‘False’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jon-stewart-debunked-claim-that-fox-news-viewers-most-consistently-misinformed-is-false/

Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!)
http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/harvard_study_shows_media_bias_favors_democrats

Pew Survey: Fox News Audience Much More Balanced
http://www.thehotjoints.com/2008/10/06/new-poll-more-democrats-watch-fox-news/

THE GREAT DIVIDE: REPORTERS GIVE DEMS MONEY OVER REPUBLICANS 9 TO 1…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

Not that the facts matter – Fox is still eeeeevil, don’tcha know.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the
University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over
hacked e-mails.

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the
University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over
hacked e-mails.
…
B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no
statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just…
…

Hahaha, I love that. “Only just.” “Sure, it’s statistically insignificant, but ONLY BARELY statistically insignificant!!” Statistics don’t work like that, moron. If they’re insignificant, THEY’RE INSIGNIFICANT. There’s no two ways about it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the
University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over
hacked e-mails.

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the
University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over
hacked e-mails.
…
B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no
statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just…
…

Hahaha, I love that. “Only just.” “Sure, it’s statistically insignificant, but ONLY BARELY statistically insignificant!!” Statistics don’t work like that, moron. If they’re insignificant, THEY’RE INSIGNIFICANT. There’s no two ways about it.

Only a Lefty drone would think Nye did a good job and made a convincing argument when he brought up sex at all, let alone interractial sex, when discussing global warming.

From the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism:

FOX NEWS FAR MORE BALANCED IN COVERAGE OF 2008 ELECTION – REST OF MEDIA VERY ONE-SIDED:

The Color of News
October 29, 2008
How Different Media Have Covered the General Election
http://journalism.org/node/13436

FOX statistics
On McCain: 40% negative stories, 22% positive
On Obama: 40% negative stories, 25% positive

Sounds pretty balanced, doesn’t it?

MSNBC statistics
On McCain: **73%** negative
On Obama: **14%** negative

Not so much balance, now is there?

Jon Stewart Debunked: Claim that FOX News Viewers ‘Most Consistently Misinformed’ is ‘False’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jon-stewart-debunked-claim-that-fox-news-viewers-most-consistently-misinformed-is-false/

Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!)
http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/harvard_study_shows_media_bias_favors_democrats

Pew Survey: Fox News Audience Much More Balanced
http://www.thehotjoints.com/2008/10/06/new-poll-more-democrats-watch-fox-news/

THE GREAT DIVIDE: REPORTERS GIVE DEMS MONEY OVER REPUBLICANS 9 TO 1…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

Not that the facts matter – Fox is still eeeeevil, don’tcha know.

Fox News is the most balanced cable news channel. The media as a whole leans heavily Left. Those are statistical facts. It’s been demonstrated to death. For crying out loud, reporters donate 9 to 1 to Democrats and FNC is always, year after year after years, proven by all credible nonpartisan studies and polls to be the most trustworthy and the most trusted. Only intellectually dishonest tools believe otherwise.

Fox News is the most balanced cable news channel. The media as a whole leans heavily Left. Those are statistical facts. It’s been demonstrated to death. For crying out loud, reporters donate 9 to 1 to Democrats and FNC is always, year after year after years, proven by all credible nonpartisan studies and polls to be the most trustworthy and the most trusted. Only intellectually dishonest tools believe otherwise.

Ad hominem and misrepresentation of facts are all you have.

Or maybe they brought it up because it’s topical. Occam’s Razor. Or, you know, just continue to believe that Fox News is puuuure eeevil because the Lefty echo chamber told you so because they won’t fall in line with the rest of the statistically-proven-to-be-Left-leaning media.

Screw you, bigot.

Gallup: Tea Parties most racially balancedhttp://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/gallup-tea-parties-most-racially-balancedApril 5th, 2010 4:10 pm ET
A new Gallup poll shows that the Tea Party movement best reflects the racial composition of the country (which only matters because liberals incessantly point out that Tea Partiers are largely white).
…
According to Gallup, 75 percent of the U.S. population is non-Hispanic White, while 11 percent are non-Hispanic black, and 15 percent belong to other races. Meanwhile, 79% of Tea Party movement supporters are non-Hispanic white, while 6 percent are non-Hispanic black, and 15 percent belong to other races.
…
Compare this with the racial composition of *Obama’s supporters* and you will quickly begin to see who is actually out of step with Mainstream America here (and who is basing their actions on race). As I have noted, the left’s habitual need to undermine, smear and race-bait this movement says more about liberals than it does about the Tea Partiers…and it’s beginning to backfire.
…

Gallup: How the Tea Party sees America
“ESSENTIALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE” FROM NON-TEA-PARTY ON VIEWS OF UNEMPLOYMENT, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/05/gallup-how-the-tea-party-sees-america/

Reporters know what really goes on in the world otherwise they wouldn’t be good reporters. The good reporters are just more intelligent and know enough to support the right candidates. That means Faux News got the bottom of the reporter pool thats available. Totaly biased and full of austerity. At least in my eyes sir.

Unlike “teas” I do listen to facts. You had me ready to get in the car, even with the head guy at “project excellence” being tied to the “right”. Then you really lost it with “Blaze”, “deadfish, “hotjoint” all 100% conservative sites. You know how this works, you send me to “tea sites” and I’ll send you to nonpartisan sites. It’s a silly circle for an old topic.

Unlike “teas” I do listen to facts. You had me ready to get in the car, even with the head guy at “project excellence” being tied to the “right”. Then you really lost it with “Blaze”, “deadfish, “hotjoint” all 100% conservative sites. You know how this works, you send me to “tea sites” and I’ll send you to nonpartisan sites. It’s a silly circle for an old topic.

I’m not sure why libs claim to be for science. Seriously, so much of the climate change gospel has been debunked and even its most ardent adherents–actual climate scientist–don’t want to bring up a lot of the stuff you libs throw out there to bolster your belief system.  For example, the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035. Totally false and removed from the latest IPCC report. The poor endangered drowning polar bears: not true, Polar bears have actually increased in population five-fold over the last fifty years and the guy pushing the polar bear thing is being prosecuted for academic misconduct. These are just two indisputable facts you people continue to dredge up: complete non-scientific garbage to support your “the science is settled” argument about global warming. Look, you people lost. Kyoto is dead. Copenhagen was a failure. Green jobs failed. Forget about cap n’trade. You lost warmers, we deniers (who are apparently on the same moral plane as Holocaust deniers because Algore said so) won. Just go away. Don’t go away mad (like Algore). Just go away.

Hahahahaha! Someone who uses the slur “teas” claims he listens to facts! Then he immediately commits the ad hominem fallacy by rejecting said facts because of the source! Even though the very first source is the highly respected, nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism. Apparently the zombie troll didn’t even follow a single link, as NONE of them ORIGINATE from sources like The Blaze. You’d think “Harvard study” in the headline would be a bit of a clue as to that fact. And speaking of The Blaze, that site was praised by Lefties for some of their stories, since they, unlike those Lefties’ own sites, will cover stories and publish investigations that don’t look perfect for their “team.” Heck, even if we were going to be moronically superficial and look only at the URLs, the claim “all 100% conservative sites” is bullcrap: You think MSNBC is conservative?

No intellectually honest person can claim that the media does not overall lean Left, nor can one who is at all informed about FNC claim that they are not the most balanced cable news network, let alone that they deserve the childish epithets the Left spews at them non-stop. You’re a closed-minded useful idiot, a product of the Leftist echo chamber, a closed-minded tool incapable of critical thought, whose “debate” skill is limited to repeating talking points and spewing vulgarity and smears. Your opinion is worth less than zero.

Your eyes are blind, tool. Fortunately, per polling data, the rest of the country isn’t so devoted to ideology that they ignore the obvious.

From the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism:

FOX NEWS FAR MORE BALANCED IN COVERAGE OF 2008 ELECTION – REST OF MEDIA VERY ONE-SIDED:

The Color of News
October 29, 2008
How Different Media Have Covered the General Election
http://journalism.org/node/13436

FOX statistics
On McCain: 40% negative stories, 22% positive
On Obama: 40% negative stories, 25% positive

Sounds pretty balanced, doesn’t it?

MSNBC statistics
On McCain: **73%** negative
On Obama: **14%** negative

Not so much balance, now is there?

Jon Stewart Debunked: Claim that FOX News Viewers ‘Most Consistently Misinformed’ is ‘False’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jon-stewart-debunked-claim-that-fox-news-viewers-most-consistently-misinformed-is-false/

Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!)
http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/harvard_study_shows_media_bias_favors_democrats

Pew Survey: Fox News Audience Much More Balanced
http://www.thehotjoints.com/2008/10/06/new-poll-more-democrats-watch-fox-news/

THE GREAT DIVIDE: REPORTERS GIVE DEMS MONEY OVER REPUBLICANS 9 TO 1…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

Not that the facts matter – Fox is still eeeeevil, don’tcha know.

Per all credible nonpartisan studies, a fact on Fox is more likely reliable and balanced by other opinions than a “fact” on the other news channels. Per Harvard, UCLA, Project for Excellence in Journalism, etc.

From the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism:

FOX NEWS FAR MORE BALANCED IN COVERAGE OF 2008 ELECTION – REST OF MEDIA VERY ONE-SIDED:

The Color of News
October 29, 2008
How Different Media Have Covered the General Election
http://journalism.org/node/13436

FOX statistics
On McCain: 40% negative stories, 22% positive
On Obama: 40% negative stories, 25% positive

Sounds pretty balanced, doesn’t it?

MSNBC statistics
On McCain: **73%** negative
On Obama: **14%** negative

Not so much balance, now is there?

Jon Stewart Debunked: Claim that FOX News Viewers ‘Most Consistently Misinformed’ is ‘False’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jon-stewart-debunked-claim-that-fox-news-viewers-most-consistently-misinformed-is-false/

Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!)
http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/harvard_study_shows_media_bias_favors_democrats

Pew Survey: Fox News Audience Much More Balanced
http://www.thehotjoints.com/2008/10/06/new-poll-more-democrats-watch-fox-news/

THE GREAT DIVIDE: REPORTERS GIVE DEMS MONEY OVER REPUBLICANS 9 TO 1…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

Not that the facts matter – Fox is still eeeeevil, don’tcha know.

From the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism:

FOX NEWS FAR MORE BALANCED IN COVERAGE OF 2008 ELECTION – REST OF MEDIA VERY ONE-SIDED:

The Color of News
October 29, 2008
How Different Media Have Covered the General Election
http://journalism.org/node/13436

FOX statistics
On McCain: 40% negative stories, 22% positive
On Obama: 40% negative stories, 25% positive

Sounds pretty balanced, doesn’t it?

MSNBC statistics
On McCain: **73%** negative
On Obama: **14%** negative

Not so much balance, now is there?

Jon Stewart Debunked: Claim that FOX News Viewers ‘Most Consistently Misinformed’ is ‘False’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jon-stewart-debunked-claim-that-fox-news-viewers-most-consistently-misinformed-is-false/

Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!)
http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/harvard_study_shows_media_bias_favors_democrats

Pew Survey: Fox News Audience Much More Balanced
http://www.thehotjoints.com/2008/10/06/new-poll-more-democrats-watch-fox-news/

THE GREAT DIVIDE: REPORTERS GIVE DEMS MONEY OVER REPUBLICANS 9 TO 1…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

Not that the facts matter – Fox is still eeeeevil, don’tcha know.

A “tea”would talk about someone being “childish”, wow! After the spin vomit you just hurled out, wow! Brainwashed sheep, that live only in the “tea bubble” like you, don’t even get me fired up anymore, so you failed. I will make sure and tell “fact check” that they are wrong about “Fox” and they should check with a “tea blog” to get the facts right. You keep living in the “tea cult bubble” and so you won’t stalk me, ( I have enough now ) Wow you were right, you got me! How’s that, we good?

Are you employed as a promotional Representive at “faux News” or just a really big fan? You seem to have spent a lot of time researching on the internet trying to find a survey that coincides with your point of view.Plus the fact you use MSNBC as your example. What about the rest of the networks? I am sure I could do the same dear sir,

I feel sorry for Bill Nye. He’s just a science guy.