Says the creationist.

Good that someone on the stage holds to the ACTUAL scientific method.

Evidence – internal emails detailing deceitful practices and cover ups
Conclusion – the research at issue is fixed.

“I don’t believe in science”…..Rick Santorum

What does Al Gore say on the topic.  After all, he invented the internet…..so he ought to know!

Santorum has a really bad record as
an economic conservative. He has supported ear marks on a number of occasions.
He also has a terrible record on trade. He has supported a number of tariffs
that would raise cost on consumers. He sponsored a bill that would raise
tariffs and then given those tariff revenues to a special interest group.

http://www.examiner.com/bloomington-economic-policy-in-springfield/why-rick-santorum-worries-me-on-trade

What is your problem?  Those emails were debunked. What else do you have.?

LOL

This man has zero chance of becoming president.

The scientific method also advocates that the findings and conclusions of scientists have to be verified by other scientists independently conducting the same experiments. I think that if you delve into other studies that seek to replicate or re-create the experiments (I’m using experiments broadly here) that a convincing case can be made that the results and conclusions drawn in the experiments that you refer to are still valid, despite the personal biases of the scientists involved.

LOL LAME Robert…EARMARKS are had by all…what is he to do NOT GO FOR MONEY for his state? You can not really smear RICK he is THAT GOOD and HONEST…but kudos for trying..lol

Most (You Know the majority) of climate scientist believe in global warming.

Well people said he had no chance at winning IOWA and he did..only spent like $35,000 to do it as opposed to MILLIONS by MITT etc… GO RICK GO! Some of us know you are the best! 

Rather, Philip Jones is no longer employed by the East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and a second batch of emails has surfaced which shows the same practices and characterizations of their research having a ‘political import.’

Leftists friendly to CRU’s conclusions ignoring the evidence is not a “debunking.”

Rick Santorum is the smartest human being alive.

Some good old fashion science hating. That’ll win over the Reagan Democrats 

Blah, blah, blah.

Dude, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Nothing that emerged from the emails has derailed the OVERWHELMING science generated by thousands of researchers in many countries over several decades. You, Santorum and a few tin foil hatters are the only ones buying the “climategate” spin.

I guess that’s it then! The whole climate science study around the world is suddenly false based on some sketchy emails from one group!

Dear Paleoconservative,

Do you concede that CO2 molecules absorb heat? 

Because if you do, you admit that global warming is real and that humans are causing it.

Sanitarium … B
Dr. Ron Paul … B-
Willard … D+
Newton Leroy … D

Sanitarium was comfortable with himsef, and he shot down Willard’s health care system BS answer at long last. A son who loves his mother! Paul finally explained some of his positions clearly. Willard still stunk up the place, and he got caught in another big lie. Newton Leroy was flustered, flat.

Blitzer …. B+

Good followup on Willard’s lie. Decent questions. No one as shocked as I.

Rather, scientists that began friendly (or at least neutral.  It would not, or should not, matter even if they were hostile to it) to the conclusions have asked for CRUs data to see if the model was accurate and the conclusions were reproducible and were stonewalled and lied to by the scientists in charge of it – to cover up the fact that the core data was unavailable to them.

Shocked on how well Blitzer did myself.

Put the Bong down.

He’s not a scientist so who cares if he doesn’t believe in a scientific fact?  Another idiot.

What makes Santorum the smartest human being alive?  Because he doesn’t believe in something that hundreds of SCIENTISTS have said is true?  Santorum isn’t smarter than a fifith grader.

What makes Santorum the smartest human being alive?  Because he doesn’t believe in something that hundreds of SCIENTISTS have said is true?  Santorum isn’t smarter than a fifith grader.

Wow.  You sound like the conservatives in the 70s who were against environmental protection against smoke emissions from factories and cars because it didn’t affect the “ozone layer” despite what scientists said to the contrary.  The conservatives, as always, were looking to help the corporations make more money with no regard to how it affected the Earth’s atmosphere.

Delusional tinfoil-hattery.   The emails revealed nothing more than the fact that scientists can lose their tempers when they are continuously harassed by incompetent, delusional hacks.

Climate-scientists have for years made public all of the raw data and documentation that any scientifically competent individual would need to perform his/her own independent verification of their results.   See my twitter profile for an example.

I, on the other hand, am no scientist.

Yet I do have a basic familiarity with argumentation to recognize that statements that begin with and are immersed with ad hominems attempt to lend support to their conclusions though grossly unscientific methods.

You had me fooled. While I disagree with you on almost every topic, I did give you credit for having a brain and some intellect. My bad.

Philip Jones no longer employed at the CRU?  Typical right-wing idiocy.  It would take a reasonably intelligent person about 30 seconds with a search engine to verify that Phil Jones is currently serving as the Director of Research at the CRU.

Linky here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/#Director%20of%20Research

This moron tries desperately to make some buzz. In vain…

Forget it. It is like arguing the shape of the earth with these people. No amount of proof will convince them of reality. I put them in the same category as the government brought down the towers crowd.

Except there aren’t “thousands of researchers in many countries over several decades” conducting independent studies covering the same ground.  Instead, there’s a limited number of studies all dipping from the same well for data and hundreds more just buying into the conclusions and using that as the basis of further studies.

East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit is the main body designated by the UN .  It’s therefore the primary source for all climate change research.  A source which has come under considerable question of late.

“not [entitled] to your own facts” indeed.

Would you care for a coffee and a donut…..yes??  It’s time for refreshments.  After refreshments, we will be playing croquet out on the lawn.  Will you join us….yes??

Can you recognize this——-you’re a teabagger clown.

Now that’s funny.

Ah.  So he stepped down only temporarily so that an investigation by the very politicians who seek the conclusions could absolve he who gives it to them.  The fact that he can’t retrieve raw data which backs his studies because it no longer exists and advocates the deletion of emails that are subject to FOIA requests doesn’t matter.  That makes sense.

a lot of meteorologists disagree.  But then they don’t get the grants.

This is an auto reply to the reality challenged.  One of the below facts pertain to your particular area of delusion.   Please do not respond as the sender believes you are beyond rational debate. 
 
Yes we landed on the moon:
There are no aliens in area 51 (probably not anyway):
The US Government did not mastermind 9/11:
President Obama was born in Hawaii:
The globe is warming:

80% of Americans do believe in Global Warming, so Santorum just lost 80% right there. Proof enough that he will never be president.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/15/360335/experts-debunk-polls-americans-believe-in-global-warming/?mobile=nc

Those of you who are trying to defend Santorum on this issue are doomed by that fact alone.

Please go to the Maldives and explain to them that their islands are not disappearing because of the rising ocean levels.

Also of note..Florida the state most vulnerable to rising ocean levels, since the highest spot in the whole state is only 345 ft

I don’t know whether you factored this in, or if so how, or if not how it might be factored in – but leave aside all the points-scoring, tonight was the first time in 19 “debates” (and they certainly are finally turning occasionally debatish) where there was an actually intelligent & revealing discussion about health care reform, albeit on a fairly narrow plane.  Plus the other part I’m having trouble crediting is Rick Santorum, who I find a god-bothering dickwad demagogue, did just a terrific job of cutting off the ring so Mitt Romney couldn’t run away from him with some meaningless dismissal (Well, there was still SOME meaningless drivel from Romney, but mostly Santorum did a great job of not letting him get away with it.). What Santorum achieved was to get Romney to make the AEI & Heritage Institute case for a mandate, that is: to force those who can afford to buy health care insurance coverage but decline, to pay some amount, whether you call it a fine or a surcharge or a penalty or compensation or whatever, to make up for the fact that the federal government mandate, going back a number of decades, requires hospitals to provide care to those so critically ill they should be hospitalized.  

This is still a stupid situation, because it means those people being compelled to that compensatory payment are STILL not availing themselves of ongoing health care, which means STILL way too many people go into hospitals generally way sicker, and way more costly to treat there, than if we had single payer i.e. universal government health care coverage.  

I was surprised that Santorum was so effective in acting the gadfly on this issue, & he deserves credit for keeping at it & doing that so well; I mean, his own position is nuts, but leave that aside: he succeeded in flushing out of Romney that Obamacare is indeed Obamneycare, and giving just a bit of hint as to what’s wrong with that – that it goes not too far but not far enough. I’m thinking that it would be great if some third party NOMinee were around in the fall to bring this up again, but right now that looks like Randy Paul’s old man, so that doesn’t look very likely.  

Anyway, special pointage for Santorum tonight: still a dick, still nuts, still dangerous, still a god-bothering demagogue – but, tonight, he served a social purpose, served it well, & provided his country something useful.

Oh – I also wanted to point out what a moron Blitz Wolfer was in trying to STOP that part of the debate, and additional special pointage for Santorum for not letting him.

Touched a nerve did I for that sort of comeback and the one above?  I guess the impulse to affect massive change in the manner in which modern man conducts himself on a global scale without due deliberation when actual figures do not match predicted results of long held models is strong.  It’s anthropomorphism they tell you, and only that.  Act now.

Look.  Being good stewards of the environment is one thing.  Being driven by bullying alarmism should on its face give one pause.  Especially considering that agenda driven science is not a new thing.  Yes, the globe is warming, but them maybe that’s what globes do (except when it wants to go through an ice age).  As when Iceland and Greenland were settled and cultivated during the medieval warming period.

Nearly 80% of the biological events that animate the globe’s ecostystems are in wild flux and the man with the sweater vest collection, a deep adoration of bronze age text (particular for the once born) and a final record of strong disaproval from his constituents assures us that warming of the globe is a hoax. I would sooner believe that Rick is a hoax… A princess Leia like hologram projected by Amalgamated Coal and Spats (subsidiary of the Pennsylvania Stovepipe Company). I’ve been riding my bike all January in the Chi with a jacket (barring perhaps 5-6 days) I can see the dust as it passes through Rick.

Take a look at my twitter profile — the graph shows results I computed from the raw data that you claim doesn’t exist.

That’s right — the very same raw data the FOI demands were centered around and that you claim doesn’t exist has been available on the CRU web-site for 6 months. Data that I downloaded, analyzed, and proved generates the same global-warming results that the CRU (and NASA) published.

Good rebuttal by Santorum.  I prefer the candidate that denies science in favor of the Bible.  That’s a man that could take us to the future.

Santorum is as unable to grasp a global consensus as he is to grasp global warming itself.

Whoopee! The antiscience president. That will get him votes in a few places (I have a little list), but weed out all the sane supporters (to the degree he had any left).

So-called “global warming/climate change” is junk & bunk, snake-oil science, & for-profit fear mongering. Please re-read Gov. Sarah Palin’s definitive essay on the subject, entitled “Boycott Copenhagen”.

Is that where she says global warming is God giving us a big warm hug?

I would switch Paul’s grade with Santorum’s grade but other than that I agree. Well, Blitz gets an A in my opinion. He didn’t let Newt play that whole “attack the mod” act he tries in every debate. Put Newt in his place & made him timid the whole debate. Complete ownership by Blitz.

Wolf has too much pride to let some weasel like Newt do to him what he did to Juan Williams & John King. Blitz made sureNewt knew who was boss & Made him answer for his negative attack ads and then made him look like a nut by fielding questions about the moon. Newt got put in his place & he deserved it.

One thing is for certain, the health care mandate will NOT be an issue in the GE. Neither Romney nor Gingrich could attack Obama for that with any credibility. Come to think of it, there is absolutely NOTHING either one of them could attack Obama on. All they could say is “in hindsight I wouldve done this slightly differently.”

You’re right, he “knows” global warming is a fraud just like he “knows” that A HUMAN COULD SURVIVE INSIDE A FISH/WHALE FOR 3 FULL DAYS & COME OUT JUST FINE. Brilliant man.

So by “scientific method” you mean this?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV

Wow, you’re a complete stereotype of the persona described on this blog,

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Almost word for word.

Obama’s taxpayer supported green scam companies failing at an ever increasing rate.

 ”Ener1 Inc., which owns a company that received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grant to make electric-car batteries, filed for bankruptcy protection after defaulting on bond debt amid Asian competition.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-27/ener1-parent-of-u-s-subsidized-battery-unit-seeks-bankruptcy.html

Santorum: bigot, homophobe, KKKristian and climate-change denier.  Yup.  Most electable.  

Your “proof” is from Sarah Palin? That’s hilarious.

Global warming has been proved quite conclusively. It’s just that you wingnut idiots love to deny science and ignore facts.

Meteorologists don’t do climate science.

Your “evidence” is false and your “conclusion” is baseless.

Clovis4: Sorry world is cooling, pretty dramatically at the moment January 2012 coldest on satellite record so far, just so you understand “below anomaly” take a look for yourself 
http://www.real-science.com/satellite-temperatures-approaching-record
or check the actual site AMSU satellite temepratures from NASA.

“Boycott Copenhagen”?  So she’s against chewing tobacco.

Wow. Stop making yourself look dumb.

“I, on the other hand, am no scientist.”
Then shut up.

NASA says that there has been NO warming in the last 16 years. NASA also says that gas emissions have increased so it appears that there is NO relationship between temp and gasses.
NASA is not funded by the Koch brothers and they are REAL scientists.

For the writer of this blog, 97% of the scientists do NOT agree. That was the result of asking a very small sample of scientists that exist. 10,000 real scientists signed a statement that the atmosphere is TOO volitile to state that human activity contributes to any climate change.

The climate change clowns are the deniers of science.

These people come from the same crowd that think Obama wasn’t actually born in Hawaii. Don’t except much scientific rigor from them. 

Not surprisingly “Paleoconservatarian” is an anagram for “Revel A Paranoiac Snot.”

Debunked? They weren’t even denied.

Link to the evidence from whence your claims come Gordo. That will allow me to identify the particular literacy standards that you are struggling with.

And Rick, when you go this time. Stay gone.

The Maldives aren’t disappearing. The problem with the Maldives is that they’re 3-8 feet above sea level, and the islands aren’t that big. One good storm wipes it all out.

Well, that and the fact that they’re run by Islamist nutjobs, but I digress.

Some sketchy emails?

Hey, how’s that IPCC thing working out? How did that Climate Conference in Durban go? Who’s up for a new CO2 treaty?

The issue is dead. Nobody, but you science-free, partisan, America hating progressive nutjobs is interested in getting involved with this particular wealth redistribution scheme.

The government cannot control the weather, and even stupid people are starting to figure that out. It’s time for you to join them.

1) One study, discredited in peer review, by someone who had been a NASA consultant.

2) The 97% of scientists not asked were those who don’t happen to be climate scientists (a loose term for a very broad field). Approximately 97% of those scientists qualified by profession to have an opinion, agree with anthropogenic climate change.

3) Nitwittery never seems to go away, but it’s pretty easy to slap down.

4) Antiscience points of view, although they play well with the no-opposable-thumb set, don’t play well with the rest of America.

Frakkin’-A: Cold in January in the northern hemisphere. Clearly climate change isn’t happening. Or if it is happening, it’s actually global cooling. Or maybe zombies are spreading a virus that sucks people’s brains out their ears. That would certainly explain yourself and Mr. Santorum.

Did it hurt? I mean when the zombies sucked your brains? Or was it the virus? Whatever.

And?

But he bought into the whole evolution is a myth idea…weird.

Now YOU should work for Jon Stewart.

And godly, dammit, he’s godly too!

Or at least hand it over.

Anything that extends the Republican freak show and brings home the point that none of these candidates are fit for office is fine by me.

Although I’d have thought we’re pretty much there already.

But what the heck. Go, Rick, Go!

“Smear” and “Santorum?”

Not words you really want in the same sentence.

I think the term you’re looking for is “lie.”

LOL

NASA has NEVER said that…you lie like a Newt.

You also left out that he’s a neo-conservative.
The neo-clowns lost congressional elections in 2006, 2008 and the white house.

And I’m stating this as a libertarian / conservative.

I think some people just hate it when the planet gets in the way of making money. And it’s the same idiots denying accepted climate science that are wah wah-ing about the debt their grandchildren will inherit as a result of the economic meltdown. You know, fish the seas out of existence, screw the air and atmosphere and merrily drag the planet into an environmental catastrophe but DON’T LEAVE OUR GRANDCHILDREN ANY DEBTS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. I think humanity is about to reach its nadir as a specie

Despite 97% of liberal scientists agreeing, these are the same group (politically) who were convinced some years ago we were going to destroy ourselves through global cooling.   The have so discredited themselves they can’t be believed until they can demonstrate facts – and the funny thing is they can’t, because they have no clue, only their political agenda driven theories.

One doesn’t need to be a scientist to evaluate an issue that has been peer-reviewed by tens of thousands of scientists and determined to be true.

To deny such a broad consensus takes a level of pigheadedness that is wholly antithetical to the notion of responsible leadership.

Hence Santorum needs to get lost.

And the fact that you are not a scientist means that you are not qualified to evaluate the informal communications of scientists and judge them as “deceitful” or “cover ups.”

And in fact, I’ll bet money you didn’t make such an evaluation. You got your “information” from some crackpot website or the other and swallowed it whole.

Which gives me the evidence I need to make estimates of your gullibility.

Paleo, you’ve been lied to by crackpots. It’s sad, but ignorance is correctable.

Liberal scientists. You have truly entered the land of the really crazy people.

Yes, a second batch of email messages proving exactly what the first batch of email messages proved: nothing.

Except that scientists exchange email messages about work in progress.

Scientific knowledge has changed dramatically in 40+ years sir, when carbon dioxide was the only widely studied greenhouse gas.  But you probably take the Bible literally, so going off of theroies 2000+ years old seems much wiser.

And for your next trick, you’ll stand on a beach and command the tide to stop coming in.

Look out, though, It’s a tad higher than it was 100 years ago.

Talking to these half-educated nitwits is, indeed hopeless.

But there’s one social benefit from such idiocy: to the degree that it’s associated with (one might say intrinsic to) wingnuttery and Republicanism, it drives sentient people away from all the other nonsensical policies also associated with the right.

Which brings the extinction of Republicanism that much closer.

What fairy tale are you pretending is true now?

Manmade Global Warming is a MYTH, and you can poll every grant-receiving scientist from here to the ends of the earth, and it doesn’t make a wit of difference.

From Department of Energy Statistics.

Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect, and 99.999% of water vapor in the atmosphere is naturally occurring.

Carbon dioxide contributes 3.618% to the greenhouse effect.

Man contributes about 3.207% to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Man thus contributes .28% to the greenhouse effect. 

Put in terms of a ratio, man contributes 1/357th to the greenhouse effect.

And that’s not even the key driver of global warming. It’s the sun…stupid.

Game over, environmentalist morons.

Do you concede that the atmosphere releases CO2? Because if you do, you admit that you’re not working all the variables in.

Due to the overpopulation of irresponsible, conservative SUV loving science deniers there is warming all over the Solar System:

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupiter/

Cal, nobody disputes that the Earth is warming.

But people with brains know that the warming is NOT caused by humans.

Hmm yea right…You are a scientist with a degree I take it…you must know what you are talking about…Yes! I believe Kyle Becker, not the consensus of the scientific community.  And Obama is Muslim from space…and the Free Masons are our true Lizard Overlords!

Who do you think I am, Obama?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tuAJkbUWU

Ahh yes here come the tin foil hat guys…

You’re right. He DID co-author a bill creating the infrastructure for the internet.

Santorum has proof that global warming is a hoax because the Earth is only 8,000 years old.

Consensus is not science, especially when you’re agreeing on fixed studies. Evidence is science. Replicable studies are science.

E=MC2 has been a matter of “scientific consensus”. Until suddenly, it’s no longer such a certainty. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/09/lots-physicists-are-nervous-about-speed-light/42949/

And, the “consensus” is falling apart as the truth of these “studies” is coming to light.

Santorum’s right and 97% of climate scientists believe is an urban myth which
comes from a paper written by scientists who
believe in global warming, in which they googled for papers and
determined for themselves who agreed with them or not.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

The only opinion poll that I’m aware of
undertaken by Bray & Storch 2008 reveals a wide range of opinions
amonst climate scientists.

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf

Only this morning, 16 leading
scientist complain about the politics around the global warming hypothesis:-

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Given that the
scientific basis for this hypothesis is based purely on the
reliability of climate models, those climate scientists who believe
in this hypothesis have been engaged in campaigns to try to silence
their critics:-

Meteorologists
have become targets:-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html?pagewanted=all

http://forecastthefacts.org/

Climate scientists
who don’t believe the hypothesis have become targets:-

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen_Illusions.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

Politicians have
become targets:-

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php

British peers have
become targets:-

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/23/climate-sceptic-lawson-thinktank-funding

I don’t recall hearing of Sir
Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein launching political campaigns to
promote their hypothesis. Probably because they provided scientific
proof.

Consensus on so-called scientists affirming the human effect on climate change/global warming is on par with American Idol watching illiterates claiming that Steve Tyler’s rendition of the National Anthem was the best, ever.

Please explain how it is rational to believe a book written 2000 years ago as undeniable truth but modern science is a bunch of hooey….

Since when have scientists with degrees become all the rage? Edison, Marconi, Graham Bell, Logie Baird etc. don’t remember any of those guys being scientists with degrees. Despite the warmist propaganda that 97% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming, it’s rubbish.

The 97% of climate scientists myth comes from a
paper written by scientists who believe in global warming, in which
they googled for papers and determined for themselves who agreed with
them or not.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

The only opinion poll that I’m aware of
undertaken by Bray & Storch 2008 reveals a wide range of opinions
amonst climate scientists.

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf

This morning, 16 leading
scientists have complained about the politics around the global warming hypothesis

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Please explain how it is rational to believe a book written 2000 years ago as undeniable truth, but modern science is a bunch of lies…

Actually, they never asked the scientists.

The 97% of climate scientists myth comes from a
paper written by scientists who believe in global warming, in which
they googled for papers and determined for themselves who agreed with
them or not.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

The only opinion poll that I’m aware of
undertaken by Bray & Storch 2008 reveals a wide range of opinions
amonst climate scientists.

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf

This morning, 16 leading scientists complained about the politics around the global warming hypothesis

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Don’t ask me. It’s the warmists who are in a religious cult.

I always love this argument.

Kinda like
My dog poops in the yard, who cares if I do?

Evidence against
the global warming hypothesis

Antarctic Sea Ice is more extensive today than
it has been since records began:-

http://tinyurl.com/86z98bo

The world hasn’t got any warmer since 1998:-

http://tinyurl.com/5t3u7ke

There is no correlation between CO2 emissions
and global mean temperature since reliable instrument records were
produced:-

http://tinyurl.com/6uxhkml

http://tinyurl.com/6mpq4v2

Global sea level rise is only 2mm per year:-

http://tinyurl.com/ybz33mw

UK (country with longest temperature record
history) winter’s mean temperature in 2010-11 was the same as it
was in 1910-11 and has barely changed in all of the intervening years
(select link, choose “Mean Temperature” in “Climate Variable”
and “Winter” in “Month/Season/Annual” list boxes:-

http://tinyurl.com/7mbpeod

Central England Temperature shows a naturally
variable climate within a very tight temperature range (+/- 1C) since
1772. We’re currently 0.5C above average but on a downward trend.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

Straw man.

Well, why not?

There were the anti-decency, anti-marital-fidelity, anti-morality presidents like JFK and Clinton.
There was an anti-courage, anti-guts President like Jimmy Carter.
There is THE anti-American President, elected due to nothing but white guilt, like Obama.

So, why not an anti-science President? Especially, in view of the fact that the “science” he and his sophomoric acolytes believe in is a proven fraud?

Keep spamming to erase everyone who doesnt agree with you or tells you “youre wrong”..Very Repug Theocracy of you!

That was FUNNY!!!  

Since you’ve taken it upon yourself to be the spokesman for stupid people, Pablo, please allow me to present a few irrefutable facts to take back to your fellows. 

There is no change in the broad scientific consensus regarding AGW.  The IPCC proceeds apace

Greg, I hope you were not the guy I “doored” the other day.  I open my car door on Wabash and  BAM! a bike messenger ran smack into it.  I asked him where he came from and he said “sorry I was crossing the street”.  He was ok but I felt terrible. I did not see him coming.
As for riding in a light jacket- yes.  I had my Felt F3 out on the lakefront yesterday-  I hate that its so warm here.  Today its about 35 degrees and we have had so little snow but I guess I shouldn’t think the world is warming.  That would be a “hoax”.  

Maybe you should talk to these half-educated nitwits.

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of
the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the
Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan
Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism,
Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;
Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National
Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton;
Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.;
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian
Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric
sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical
University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York
Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager
and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former
U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University,
Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological
Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of
Scientists, Geneva.

You mean like the science from Galveston bay?

“We know the water is rising,”
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/insight/texans-deserve-truth-about-health-of-galveston-bay-1928890.html

For the past decade, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ), which is run by Perry political appointees, including famed
global warming denier Bryan Shaw,
has contracted with the Houston Advanced Research Center to produce
regular reports on the state of the Bay. But when HARC submitted its
most recent State of the Bay publication to the commission
earlier this year, officials decided they couldn’t accept a report that
said climate change is caused by human activity and is causing the sea
level to rise.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/perry-officials-censored-climate-report

And handsome in his sweater vest, too!

And that a man could be brutally murdered, die and rise up just fine three days later and then fly up into the sky to live there!

Pablo
Who do you think I am, Obama?

Nope

He’s smarter than you.

You’re a lone voice. Get out of the cave, the world isn’t going to end. Your prophet was a false one.

P.S. Have a shave

I personally would LOVE to see Ricky as the GOP nominee.  Talk about popcorn moments….

There is already garbage in the street.
Whats it going to matter if I throw my cup out the window?

Google it!

Rick Santorum On Why He’s Most Electable: I Didn’t Buy Into ‘Global Warming Hoax’

Yep

That will do it.

mosesdinoark, you obviously believe in your idol, the Nazi propaganda minister who said that repeat a lie often enough and people WILL believe it.

Of course, you are not alone. Obama and all his czars ‘think’ the same way.

No, no, no. 97% of BOUGHT-AND-PAID-FOR CORPORATE “scientists agree that the human activity is responsible for global warming”.
There’s a distinction there.
See, if human activity ISN’T “responsible for global warming”, there would be no need to cap human production and tax human air consumption and that, you will agree, will make the financial military corporate terrorists who already own everything less money, which is what this is all about, make no mistake.
Maybe talk to some NON corporately-owned scientists? You know, those that don’t OWE results their masters want to hear? See what they have to say about what causes global warming? What did CERN say, for example? Putting Einstein’s lightspeed is max theory under scrutiny with their collider, you know they don’t give a hoot about anyone.
The point is: maybe you could SPARE us the criminal propaganda for a change?
Just a thought.
Thank you.

HAHA..Bring back the “czars”  Thats an oldie!  But still a goodie..started by your “god” Ronnie “jelly beans” Regan.

And your prophet is…..? Or should I say…”profit’?

So I guess your calling every priest, minster, deacon, evangelist, etc., a Nazi..? HMmmm interesting.

There is an old saying among the tenured free-loaders: Publish or perish.

It’s about as phony as themselves, because due to tenure, they will never perish, but it would be hard for them to brag to their fellow phonies if they have not published anything for a while.

So, this week butter is bad for you, but then a tenured pinhead publishes a ‘study’ that butter is good for you.

Same thing with milk, salt, meat, air, water, and any and all necessities of life.

So, they know the pattern. Say what gets you the most benefits, science and your beliefs be damned!

How is that consensus working for you?

This is not quite how I saw it; the EFFECT was the same, & I agree with you that Blitz’ ‘weasely ways’ probably had something to do with this (I envision a pre-debate conference in which they vetted Blitz’ script so all ‘King-Newt’ colloquys were edited out.), but I thought what happened was that Newt, who’s smarter than Blitz, caught on to this having happened & so went with A Bridge Too Far, trying to FORCE out one of his trademark media bashes. The fact that Blitz didn’t react is intriguing: Blitz’ performance on Jeopardy! suggests he’s got some mind-set that doesn’t allow him to adjust to situations where a mole pops up from somewhere off the surface of the Whack A Mole game, so this also suggest the CNN conferencing on what the captive Newt might do also covered the contingency of Newt trying to force the moment. The TECHNIQUE that Blitz used is pretty much what he always uses, which is the ‘move it along’ trick where he keeps the ball bouncing. I thought that became most obvious when Blitz failed to understand the importance of what Santorum was doing in debating Mitt over the principle behind Romneycare, which to me was the single closest thing to a truly intellectual discussion I’ve heard from this clown posse in 19 debates. But Blitz tried to Blitz it out of existence!  

This debate also led me to an understanding of the paradoxical value of Newt in these primaries. Newt had a generally poor night, worse than Romney who actually score points on Newt with some prep & persistence, which is amazing for a Borg (though maybe not that amazing: Watson the computer started slow on Jeopardy! but learned along the way & ended up unbeatable), but scary for the process, because the ‘vetting’ of Mitt has really just started & Newt’s a big part of that process. I realize that no matter how awful & flawed a PERSON Newt is, I WANT him to gut Romney, not because Romney isn’t better but because Romney is Borg, and I would much rather watch an heroic HUMAN effort by Newt to get after Obama and fail, failure being almost inevitable because Newt is so wrong, than I would watch Romney make his pathetic BORG effort to go after Obama and fail, failure being absolutely inevitable because Obama won’t even have to engage the Borg to beat him – just let the Borg go off on stupid memes (Re. Sis. Tance. Is Fu. Tile. O. Ba. Ma. Bows. To Dick. Tay. Tors.). 

Santorum has been following the skeptic side of the issue, unlike our friends here who look at only the Al Gore side. Besides the idea of man-caused global warming falling apart at an exponential rate at the hands of the skeptic scientists, another troublesome problem may soon begin contributing to this downfall. For those who are unaware of it, there is another largely unreported facet to this issue…. a “Monumental fault in manmade global warming notion hiding in plain sight”  http://junkscience.com/2011/12/24/monumental-fault-in-manmade-global-warming-notion-hiding-in-plain-sight/

Moved…

What came out of Durban, Dolf? NOTHING. But what came out of Kyoto? Canada.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/12/12/143603341/canada-exits-kyoto-climate-agreement

I know it’s breaking your heart and the hearts of the UN kleptocrats, but it’s over. Nobody’s buying it. Time to MoveOn.org.

Luckily not me.  I have never been doored, hit by a car driving into the bike lane once… that was double plus unfun.
The one good thing about global warming is that my Lakeview home will eventualy be closer to the lake… that and I will be able to plant the garden earlier.  Beyond that…

You mean the 97% (or 98% depending on how you round) of the 2% who bothered to respond to the survey (77 responses from 3146 scientists asked to participate)?  I’m guessing those 2% aren’t afraid to defend the company line.  Why risk your career/funding/reputation over a survey?  Watch as more and more come out against AGW.  It’s already happening.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/09/08/global-warming-a-98-consensus-of-nothing/

That’s not even remotely true East Anglia is one of several earth temperature research units from different countries and it’s not even the most complete. The better two are NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Climatic Data Center. The Berkley BEST study recently found that their all of their data is in fact very accurate. 

The globe is warming at an unprecedented rate. That case is closed. Some people are still clinging to the straws that the warming isn’t caused by humans but that boat is sailing since every line of evidence from natural sources can’t come close to explaining the rise in warmth.

All  living things, excluding plants – not only humans – exhale CO2.

And whatever CO2 those living things exhale, plants will be more than happy to receive and inhale. The more, the better.

So, blame the tigers, seals, lions, pandas, mice, elephants, hippos, beavers, moose, chickens, cows, turkeys, sea horses, frogs, lizards, snakes, pigs, cats, dogs and Democrats for ruining old Mother Earth. 

Yes, and Huckabee won Iowa during the last presidential nominee cycle. What’s your point?

 and your drinking Jones Town kool-aid, please keep doing it , it will cure your mental disease called, liberalism.

And what will cure you of your lousy spelling and grammar, genius?

Dude, all your conspiracy theory arguments have long been debunked. See http://skepticalscience.com for answers to /every one/ of your arguments on this page.

You’ve said you’re not a scientist. So how about we leave the science to the scientists? Like Richard Muller who was a climate skeptic until he actually did the science. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

So, even if climate change is a “hoax”, what’s the wost that comes out of green technologies?
Cleaner air,
cleaner water,
less reliance on fossil fuels from ANY source.

To list just a few.

In reply to your You tube link, please take note that not once does he say “I”.
Suck it , Pablow

Thinking which highlights why the Republican Party is a dinosaur shambling toward the tar pits.

Anti-fact just doesn’t cut it.

I’ll lay this out in soundbites for ya:

1) The science is incontrovertible (although as science, is continually tested by new ideas).

2) The consensus represents the institutional part of science focused around peer review.

3) The consensus is in no way falling apart except in the minds of crackpots.

4) The questions surrounding the speed of light and all the other things that have come out of Einstein’s work are A Very Big Deal, Incredibly Cool, but very much in the early days of study.

Quite the opposite, for quite a number of years I accepted that those who knew better were being above the board in their research and in their approach, even as I knew the history of agenda driven science in other fields and even as I watched a misanthropic worldview taking over more and more airtime in news pieces or nature and science shows which found airing.  Until I began to take a cursory look into things myself and found that those described as crackpots or industry tools were anything but – they were legitimate voices in opposition (indeed, entire fields other than those specific to climate research are largely represented by such folk) – that peer review process was being abused and contravening presentations being suppressed.  This while predictions from the models were not being matched by observations.

And then I found there was an economic wrinkle to the whole mess, as when treaties were being agreed which put limits on American and western industrial growth but exempted developing countries and emerging economic competitors – a series of UN backed plans which jibed with another thing I knew from my familiarity of geopolitics in which 3rd world nations have ever sought to suck as much cash out the developed world as can be had.

And then I witnessed how the science came to be widely accepted – through indoctrination, emotional appeals and crass propaganda based on gross exaggerations and outright lies.  Then came to light the deceitful practices used to win over circumspect politicians as when AGW advocates scheduled congressional hearings during a heat wave in the hottest days of the year for which the air conditioning was turned off.  Such are the tactics used to advance a sound scientific reality?  Only if you’re pushing the Piltdown man on people.

And then, of course, came the emails.  It doesn’t take a scientist to recognize a pattern. Only one who has a modicum of judgement.

If I feel lied to in this entire process, it’s by pushers of the AGW agenda.  Of course, I take it as a given that positions that are supported by tactics as AGW increasingly has been, mockery and personal attacks on those in opposition and the concerted generation of bigotry towards a new class of “deniers” (as well as the scientific suppression above), comes not from a process rooted in truth.

Anybody who thinks it’s not caused by humans is failing to use their brain. All other possible explanations have been disproven.

You clearly know nothing about science at all. If you didn’t get your scientific “knowledge” from the likes of Santorum and the right-wing talking heads on Fox and talk radio, you might be able to understand the truth. There have been no “fixed studies”, the evidence unanimously supports the fact that humans are causing global warming, and the consensus is stronger than ever.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/videos/climategate-debunked-but-only-jon-stewart-covers-the-news

So because political opposition has stalled action on global warming, that means the science is bad? This is pathetic even for you, Pablo.

A source which has come under considerable question, but only from anti-science zealots like you.

Plants don’t have an infinite capacity to take in CO2. It’s not “the more, the better” at all. And additional plants don’t just spontaneously appear to deal with the extra CO2. That’s why the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have steadily and demonstrably increased over the past century or so. The amount exhaled by living things hasn’t changed. The amount belched out by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, has changed.

That old lie again? Get some new material.

And no, there aren’t “more and more” climatologists coming out against AGW.

There’s nothing “skeptical” about Santorum’s side of the issue. Global warming deniers will blindly accept any claim that goes against the evidence of man-caused global warming, without the slightest bit of skepticism. The idea of AGW most certainly is not falling apart at any rate, exponential or otherwise. The evidence is clear, except to anti-science zealots who are determined to ignore it.

The “BOUGHT-AND-PAID-FOR CORPORATE scientists” are the ones who deny global warming. That’s where the corporate money is. The oil and coal companies that are the biggest profit centers in human history.

Graham Bell and Logie Baird were college educated. And Edison got most of his successes by stealing from Tesla, who was a college graduate.

Except not.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

And seriously, anybody with even a slight understanding of the solar system would realize that if the sun were causing measurable warming as far away as Pluto, Earth would be incinerated.

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is basically constant, because it doesn’t stay up there for very long. It falls back down as rain. Unlike water vapor, carbon dioxide accumulates.

And if the sun is the key driver of global warming, how come we keep seeing warming despite the fact that the sun has been cooling?

NASA never said any such thing. And the 10,000 scientists who signed that statement were not climatologists. What expertise does a geologist or a botanist or an archaeologist have in climate science? That would be like going to a podiatrist for an opinion on brain surgery.

BTW, the warmest year on record is 2010.

One more reason he’s an idiot.  Shockingly stupid.  Tell it to the polar ice caps and otherwise.  There’s likely been no less than 15-20 news articles alone this year already that speak to the idiocy of such a position.

So basically what you’re saying is that over time, you have embraced a conspiracy theory that has supposedly deranged an entire field of science even though the vast weight of evidence and even simple logic makes that nonsensical.

(I get it. Many Americans believe in angels, and that says a lot about the gullibility of people in general.)

And in some way the leaked emails were the final straw for you?

Bottom line: the emails in question — a handful cherry-picked out of thousands — were informal exchanges between colleagues about their work in progress. They were telegraphic, alluded to things the scientists had not resolved with their researches yet, and constituted exhanges about how data could be presented in a way that was meaningful to the audiences for which it was intended.

The crackpots have attempted to whip this into a froth of pernicious collusion and faked data, which demonstrates not only their own ignorance of how science is done, but some deep-seated fear of change that might require a rethinking of the way we conduct our lives.

And you bought it.

So sad.

As ever, astounded how wrong folks try to get it when basically describing “what I am saying.”

He doesn’t believe in global warming,but does believe in the invisible man in the sky.I’d say he’s pretty smucking fart.As smart as someone with an IQ of fifty.

It is obvious that you are not too bright. So you think I just made up what NASA said? LOL, while I am looking up the NASA articles, here is some new info from REAL scientists for you to pretend don’t know what they are talking about. LOL.

No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

NASA’s Research Substantiates Trend Towards Global Cooling – Human “Global Warming” From CO2 Has Disappeared
Latest data from NASA / GISS confirms the robust deceleration of global warming, revealing the non-significant impact on global temperatures by CO2 
The AGW alarmist claim of “accelerating” global warming requires, at minimum, an increasing rate of temperature change as denoted by an increasing slope of a linear trend line. The two above charts plot the rolling 10-year trend (slope) of the annual GISS temperature data – the left axis of both charts represents slope in terms of temperature change per hundred years (century).
The leftmost chart reveals a large variation in speed and level of temperature change since the 1800s. The right chart takes the same data but only plots the last 15 years of GISS “acceleration” and “deceleration.”
From the 2001 peak of a +3.48°C/century temperature rate, it has now fallen at the end of 2011 to an almost flat rate of +0.04°C/century temperature increase. Per the actual evidence, the increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 (grey arrow and grey area of charts) has zero influence on whether global temperatures are accelerating or decelerating.
These two charts do not represent predictions of future temperatures, but both clearly indicate that the IPCC and major climate research agencies have been substantially wrong in predicting “accelerating” warming.
Likewise, they have been substantially wrong in their assumption that the climate sensitivity to increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 is positive, growing and nearing a runaway tipping point. The empirical evidence proves all of these assertions to be essentially false.
Conclusions:
Global temperatures are decelerating, not acceleratingRising CO2 levels do not cause global temperatures to continuously increaseClimate sensitivity to CO2 levels is not robustIPCC predictions of “runaway” temps and climate “tipping points” are without empirical merit
 

Only idiots like you think I make up stuff. You are the people that make up stuff.

Here is the article with the NASA info. Now go play in the street.

NASA’s Research Substantiates Trend Towards Global Cooling – Human “Global Warming” From CO2 Has Disappeared
Latest data from NASA / GISS confirms the robust deceleration of global warming, revealing the non-significant impact on global temperatures by CO2 
The AGW alarmist claim of “accelerating” global warming requires, at minimum, an increasing rate of temperature change as denoted by an increasing slope of a linear trend line. The two above charts plot the rolling 10-year trend (slope) of the annual GISS temperature data – the left axis of both charts represents slope in terms of temperature change per hundred years (century).
The leftmost chart reveals a large variation in speed and level of temperature change since the 1800s. The right chart takes the same data but only plots the last 15 years of GISS “acceleration” and “deceleration.”
From the 2001 peak of a +3.48°C/century temperature rate, it has now fallen at the end of 2011 to an almost flat rate of +0.04°C/century temperature increase. Per the actual evidence, the increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 (grey arrow and grey area of charts) has zero influence on whether global temperatures are accelerating or decelerating.
These two charts do not represent predictions of future temperatures, but both clearly indicate that the IPCC and major climate research agencies have been substantially wrong in predicting “accelerating” warming.
Likewise, they have been substantially wrong in their assumption that the climate sensitivity to increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 is positive, growing and nearing a runaway tipping point. The empirical evidence proves all of these assertions to be essentially false.
Conclusions:
Global temperatures are decelerating, not acceleratingRising CO2 levels do not cause global temperatures to continuously increaseClimate sensitivity to CO2 levels is not robustIPCC predictions of “runaway” temps and climate “tipping points” are without empirical merit
 

Just did that above, Dumbo. Go back to the fry station. A order for fries just came in.

You, “Just did that above”?  No you didn’t Gordo.  You cut and paste some words without linking.  Make sure you wear your helmet on your scooter ride to the Quaker Steak and Lube. 

It worked  before, and it is working now, for a while at least…
DO NOT MISS THIS VIDEO
http://vimeo.com/9578337 

I really shudder at the thought of this idiot becoming president.

A Wall Street Journal op-ed? Get serious.

Nope, you’re wrong. Period. NASA says that warming is going to get even more rapid in the near future, too.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture-global-warming.html
http://planetsave.com/2012/01/28/nasa-more-rapid-global-warming-in-near-future/

That isn’t “NASA info”.

So one cold month in the middle of winter proves that the “world is cooling”? Total nonsense, from the totally nonsensical.

The Hoax is over, give it up.

Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
·         Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
By David Rose
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1krCGeuIm

From the NEWS today. The hoax is over pal. Give it up. Notice this comes from East Anglia U.. The same outfit that was pushing the hoax. They have made you look like a fool.

Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
·         Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
By David Rose
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1krCGeuIm

Are the scientists at East Anglia bought and paid for? LOL just look at what they are saying TODAY. The hoax is over, they made a fool out of you.

Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
·         Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
By David Rose
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1krCGeuIm

Poor baby, the scientists at East Anglia have now admitted the hoax is over. We will all be waiting for your mea culpa.

Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
·         Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
By David Rose
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1krCGeuIm

LOL,

Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
·         Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
By David Rose
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1krCGeuIm

You keep making fool out of yourself. You suffer from stupidity.

Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
·         Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
By David Rose
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1krCGeuIm

We will be waiting for the apologies from the global warming believers after reading the latest news from the U. of East Anglia. Remember those are the folks you believed about the rising temps. LOL.

Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
·         Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
By David Rose
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1krCGeuIm

You link to the Daily Mail for a scientific topic? Did your mother give birth to a child that survived? If so, perhaps I should be chatting with that one.

For all you saps that have bought into the Global Warming and Agenda 21 HOAX.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.
“Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. ”

baahh,   Comrades

Oh and do you think that “97% of all scientists” even study global warming or climate? All predictions of warming have come from unproven, unreliable computer models.

Then why don’t you just go to the source… http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

and read it for yourself. The fact that someone referred to a story in the Daily Mail does not reduce it’s validity when the story itself cites the sources from which the article is based.

The story offers a plethora of other sources dating back as far as 1790. If you want to dispute it, then go try and figure out how that 8% may be more of a probability than the 92% chance they are basing their prediction on.

Apparently the science isn’t settled…

Poor baby, the scientists at East Anglia have now admitted the hoax is over.

Never happened, liar. The only “hoax” is the denial of global warming. The numbers that the Daily Heil put out are false. They claim that temperatures peaked in 1997, even though 2005 and 2010 were (despite their fake charts) warmer than 1997.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

The data in that Daily Mail article is false. 1997 was not even the warmest year, so how could the warming trend of ended then?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

It is amazing how stupid you are.

I don’t know any President named Regan. Maybe that was someone using a phony name to lie like you.

It must be tough for a grade school drop out like you. You are just lucky to have a trade like washing dishes to still have a job.

Tee hee you so clever..ok so what? I mistyped.  Didnt know you were the informal blog spell checker.

What amazes me is that someone as stupid as you manages to figure out how to even turn your computer on.

New British Studies Confirms Climate Change Consensus, Daily Mail Gets It Totally Wrong:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/01/new_british_study_confirms_cli.php

This is what you get when you try to use the Daily Heil as a source.

New British Studies Confirms Climate Change Consensus, Daily Mail Gets It Totally Wrong:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/01/new_british_study_confirms_cli.php

This is what you get when you try to use the Daily Heil as a source.

New British Studies Confirms Climate Change Consensus, Daily Mail Gets It Totally Wrong:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/01/new_british_study_confirms_cli.php

This is what you get when you try to use the Daily Heil as a source.

New British Studies Confirms Climate Change Consensus, Daily Mail Gets It Totally Wrong:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/01/new_british_study_confirms_cli.php

This is what you get when you try to use the Daily Heil as a source.

New British Studies Confirms Climate Change Consensus, Daily Mail Gets It Totally Wrong:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/01/new_british_study_confirms_cli.php

This is what you get when you try to use the Daily Heil as a source.

New British Studies Confirms Climate Change Consensus, Daily Mail Gets It Totally Wrong:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/01/new_british_study_confirms_cli.php

This is what you get when you try to use the Daily Heil as a source.

New British Studies Confirms Climate Change Consensus, Daily Mail Gets It Totally Wrong:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/01/new_british_study_confirms_cli.php

This is what you get when you try to use the Daily Heil as a source.

LOL, You still don’t get it. Weathermen are climate scientists.

According to the Washington Post, the reason for the campaign can be found in a 2010 George Mason University surveys, which found that 63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity.

It is too bad the condom broke or you wouldn’t be here. Go play in the street.

No condom could contain my brave father,

Keep pushing your cherry picked stories that appear only on Fox, The NY Post and their UK equivalents.  

The chances that you saw the Met Office response to David Rose’s muddled and grossly misleading article are about the same as you understanding just how overwhelming the concensus is among independent (ie “not on the payroll of energy companies or think tanks funded by energy companies”) climate scientists.    And, no, Fair Weather Flip from Channel 58, Northwest Indiana’s Fox Family HQ does not count as a climate scientist.

Here’s the correction to your smoking gun: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/01/30/another-day-another-intentionally-distortive-effort-to-discredit-climate-change/

I eagerly await the claim that I am posting under an online ID as evidence that you agree that the Daily Mail Article is DOA.

Are you just trolling now? Weathermen most certainly are not climate scientists.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-global-warming-caused-mostly-by-humans/1

NASA says global warming is happening and caused mostly by humans.

The greatest scientific fraud in human history.. nothing else compares.

the most critical of all data that used for the east anglia predictive computer models -  is not available, in fact its was “lost”

it was all about money, worldwide now billions in fact … these once obscure ”researchers” became like rock stars who refused to leave the stage once the numbers went against them, so they fudged the data and lied and deceived any way they could.