Global Warming (cont.) Let's cut through the crap. by chrisisall

America loves a winner!

Quote:
When you want to discuss the topic and you come with something to say, I'll be happy to join in. But I'm not going to spend any more time researching your position for you.

That's how I started this discussion, but you simply didn't care to respond to what I had posted. You said all I ever posted was MY OPINION, to which I replied with posting examples of legit sites that back up my views. Yes, real world events ( thankfully ) pull us away from these boards, but for you to take the time to reply and casually dismiss anythin I post out of hand, with no explanation..... that's where 'petty' comes to mind.

I never said anything about Gore's movie, so no...no need to defend that.

Per the blog which I posted, it was from a global warming proponent who was still criticizing the methods and findings of ANOTHER g.w. proponent. His PONIT, was that steps must be taken to make sure that good, solid science is brought to the table. Sorry you had such trouble with it, I thought it self explanitory.

And here I thought this thread was suppose to 'cut through the crap' . :shrug:

P.S. , if you're going to carry over a discussion from another thread, even if it's on the same subject, PLEASE point that minor detail out. I think that is partially where our wire got crossed. I failed to notice your last post on the other g.w. thread.
Thanks.

P.P.S. - Here's a link to the Revkin story which you said you could not find. "The basics connecting the global warming dots "
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/DeepModem%20Mom/2597
The reply I posted, by Roger Pielke Sr. The basic critcism by Pielke Sr. is that Revkin oversimplifies his conclusions. Hope this helps.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 12:06 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 12:12 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 12:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
Ya know what's realy funny?...that you're a pompous smart-assed little puke....now that's not only hysterical, but also a proven scientific fact!

Better that than being a foul mouthed brain dead little Troll

. What's the matter, can't prove your case, that 'scientifically proven' fact upset you does it? Ahh, poor baby, try not too kick the floor too hard while you have that tantrum.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And shortly thereafter the slowdown in global warming will indicate all the hot air being blown by rightwingnut trolls and politicians as a significant contributory factor.

LOL!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 12:20 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

All them righty-whitey types who're all waitin for the day of the rope, I say we give it to em, just not how they expect it to go.

-Frem

Don't know what 'day of the rope' you're referrin', but if you think you can give it to us, by all means, give it a go.

I'm thinkin you won't like what end of the rope you end up on.

p.s. Hey citizen...triple post much ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 12:26 PM

Hey Frem

You're getting threatened by a Troll, bet you're quaking, do you need some protection

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 12:27 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

p.s. Hey citizen...triple post much ?

It was so funny I asked him to repeat it.
What is your problem? The system hiccuped...if it does it while you post should we make fun of you?
Can't stay on a losing pattern and have to divert?

Shouldn't you be watching Buffy anyway Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 4:34 PM

FREMDFIRMA

*snicker*

Actually i'm having a very funny mental image of the boys on cass and the rightywhiteys having a rope-pull tug of war over the broken sewer main on cass.

That'd be fun.

I drive a cab in detroit almost every day, it's not like some 101st keyboarder scares me, no.

That sewer main does tho, reminds me of that movie with that supersize gator down there, I keep hoping it doesn't turn into a sinkhole and swallow my cab, so far, so good.

Thump-Bump!

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:23 AM

America loves a winner!

citizen troll - If you could read post in sequential order, it wasn't I who threatened anyone 1st. I merely replied w/ a question and a clarification.

chris - citizen troll is constantly tacking on little quips and comments when I'm discussing with others. Turn about is fair play. And besides, no Buffy 'till Monday, at the earliest.

Glad we're staying on topic.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It was so funny I asked him to repeat it.
What is your problem? The system hiccuped...if it does it while you post should we make fun of you?
Can't stay on a losing pattern and have to divert?

Chris, Don't feed the trolls

.

Besides, as pathetic an attempt that was it really is one of his best, maybe one day he'll be able to get sarcasm and irony.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:23 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Am I a troll?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Am I a troll?

No, Trolls are posters that do nothing but attempt to derail debate in to spiralling flame wars. Not someone who merely gets caught up in them, someone who actually seeks to create them so people don't talk about subjects they don't want talked about.

That's AURaptor to a T. But it's not you.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:58 PM

America loves a winner!

citizen troll : In your dreams, you wish you were 1/ 10th the human being I am.

Keep wishing, pal.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:55 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

It's rather irritating that any time there is a disagreement on these boards, everyone calls everyone else a troll.

Disagree? Well then, you're probably a troll.

Disagree vehemently? You're definitely a troll.

And now instead of discussing the topic, we can argue about how trollish we all are.

Whee.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 4:34 AM

America loves a winner!

I know. citizen started it. I sure wish he'd stop. It's annoying.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It's rather irritating that any time there is a disagreement on these boards, everyone calls everyone else a troll.

Disagree? Well then, you're probably a troll.

Disagree vehemently? You're definitely a troll.

And now instead of discussing the topic, we can argue about how trollish we all are.

Whee.

No Anthony. I disagree with you a lot (like here for instance) and I don't call you a Troll. Anyone who chooses to immediately throw out insults in all circumstances is a troll (that is AURaptor). Anyone who uses pathetic childish insults is a troll. Anyone who consistently uses moronic childish sentiments (he started it nayh nayh nayh, I know you are but what am I, see above

) is a troll. I label posters trolls when they significantly and consistently attempt to derail any useful discussion, and really, honestly, is that not AURaptor? He literally is incapable of replying too anyone here who he disagrees with without calling them an 'ass' or an 'idiot'. Sure we all throw mud, but that's ALL he does, questioning it is like questioning whether Kaneman is a troll. So I've had enough of trying to talk to him as if he is a person, he's a troll and that's all there is too it.

And AT, please stop feeding him, then maybe he'll go away and we can have a grown up conversation

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:33 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/ap_on_go_co/congress_climate; _ylt=Am9QotYXqQs79xUc8C3Du06s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

"At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat. Their complaints ranged from a challenge to using the phrase "global warming" to raising uncertainty on issues on which most scientists basically agree, to keeping scientists from talking to the media."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:13 PM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/ap_on_go_co/congress_climate; _ylt=Am9QotYXqQs79xUc8C3Du06s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

"At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat. Their complaints ranged from a challenge to using the phrase "global warming" to raising uncertainty on issues on which most scientists basically agree, to keeping scientists from talking to the media."

Well, they obviously ALL have an agenda.

The most telling sentence in that article is

Quote:
"In the past the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change."

You do not "balance" facts with lies. That's ridiculous. If I wrote a paper that presented a bunch of evidence for one thing, then in my conclusions section said the exact opposite in the interests of making it "fair and balanced," shall we say, I'd never get published ever again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:42 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
.....You do not "balance" facts with lies. .....

Man that is classic. I think you've nailed the neocon thought process.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:47 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Absolutely.

RE: Troll
Auraptor- I have a post waiting for you. It's in your very own "going mad" thread. Let me know when you feel like having a real discussion, 'kay? Thanks.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 4, 2007 2:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

RE: who are these upper-level scientists playing on upper-level supercomputers -

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070111184302.htm

Supercomputer To Advance Studies Of Abrupt Climate Change
Zhengyu Liu

The centerpiece of the UW-Madison-led experiments will be the first continuous computer simulation of the past 21,000 years of global climate change. This period in the earth's history included the last major glacial retreat and a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the "greenhouse gas" most associated with global warming.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 4, 2007 2:55 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

And now instead of discussing the topic, we can argue about how trollish we all are.

I blame my troll-self.

Trollisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 2:58 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Absolutely.

RE: Troll
Auraptor- I have a post waiting for you. It's in your very own "going mad" thread. Let me know when you feel like having a real discussion, 'kay? Thanks.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

Funny you refer me as a troll BEFORE you ask me if I want to have a 'real' discussion.

Yeah, that's the mark of sincere, mature folk.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 6:52 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap,

You've got to be kidding. Right? Just 'cause SignyM was trying to parse out which part of which post was in response to what and who, you do a complete well, troll?

How about discussing the topic? Is that too much to ask?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 8:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How about discussing the topic? Is that too much to ask?

Uhm, let me think...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 8:40 AM

There was a topic?

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 8:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

HA HA HA HA

Global Warming (cont.) Let's cut through the crap.

Tho there is a certain amount of cross-posting going on. Some ppl jump from thread to thread and then other ppl go around from thread to thread after them saying 'yoo hooo' are you here? will you meet me over there?

I mean, look at me. I've been asking Anti 'if god made the universe, who made god' for a while. And that in a thread that started out as 'patriotism'. Things do hop around a bit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 3:04 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:19 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
As they march in unison to the sea of koolaid, the global warming lemmings seem to have an answer for everything...every base is covered. If it's very hot in the country...well it's global warming; if it's very cold in the country....well it's global warming. If there's a lot of storms & hurricanes...well it's global warming; if there aren't a lot of hurricanes...well it's global warming. Sounds alot like my wife, my bank, and my insurance company...they're never wrong & can change the rules whenever they want to advance their agenda.

I am kaneman and I approve this message........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:45 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
2) IS the mean temperature of the planet increasing?

This is a more complicated question than a "yes" or "no."

Science isn't about ONLY a few facts that support our position. It is about facts in context of an endless list of other facts, both already observed and ones still being gathered. It is about teasing out and ruling out alternative explanations until we find a model that best predicts the future. And even then, that model is subject to change when still more facts are discovered.

Glacial recession needs to be put in context of other facts such as glacial growth and recession globally throughout earth's history. Ice shelves breaking needs to be put in context of other facts such as ice shelf growth and breakage globally throughout earth's history. Ocean levels rising needs to be put in context of ocean levels rising and receding globally throughout earth's history. You get the picture.

Anyone who has studied science and statistics knows that numbers are malleable. You can have data to support any position you choose. That is why information on methodology, context, and confounders are essential in interpreting data.

The IPCC does not reveal methodologies or confounders, which is essential in any scientific paper. It presents data in such a way as to force the reader to ASSUME that all data presented is generalizable and representative fact, with no qualifiers in their interpretation.

I want to make it clear that this critique is in no way dismissing the data reported by the IPCC, nor impugning the integrity of the scientists involved. I am saying the data they presented rests on unspoken assumptions, is incomplete, needs to be placed in context of confounders (possible alternative explanations), and interpreted cautiously.

*******end disclaimer************

ASSUMING that the data reported by IPCC is accurate, representative, and generalizable, this is what we know about global temperatures.

All quotations taken from this Executive Summary authored by the IPCC.
http://grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF

1. "The global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6 plus/minus 0.2 degrees C since the late 19th century."

2. From 1860 to 1910 (50 years), there were ups and downs, but there was no significant net increase in average global surface temperature.
From 1910 to 1945 (35 years), there was a dramatic warming, with the average global surface temperature rising about 0.45 degrees C.
From 1945 to 1975 (30 years), there was a slight cooling, with the avg. temp declining about 0.2 degrees C.
From 1975 to 2000 (25 years) there was a dramatic warming, with the avg. temp rising about 0.45 degress C.

3. "...the largest increases in temperature have occurred over the mid-and high latitudes of the continents in the Northern Hemisphere."
"Year-round cooling is evident in the north-western North Atlantic and central Pacific Oceans, but the North Atlantic cooling trend has recently reversed."

A series of graphs show the following:
---From 1910 to 1945 (35 years), there was a mild to dramatic warming in average global surface temperatures, except for the following areas where there was no data: Greenland/Arctic, northern part of South America, most of Africa, most of western China and Mongolia, most of northern Russia, most of the Pacific, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and Antarctica.
---From 1946 to 1975 (30 years), there was mild to moderate cooling in North America, North Atlantic, North Pacific, part of Central Pacific, subsaharan central Africa, most of China, and northwestern Russia.. No data from
Greenland/Arctic, Brazil, Antarctica.
---From 1976 to 2000 (25 years) there was mild to dramatic warming globally, especially in the northern hemisphere, parts of southern Africa and northern Australia. There was slight cooling in central Pacific, South Atlantic, and
South Indian Oceans. No data from eastern Brazil, central Africa, Greenland/Arctic, and Antarctica.

4. "New analyses indicate that the global ocean heat content has increased significantly since 1950's...equivalent to a rate of temperature increase in this layer [upper 300 m] of about 0.04 degrees C/decade."

5. "On average, minimum temperatures are increasing at about twice the rate of maximum temperatures (0.2 versus 0.1 degrees C / decade)."

******WHAT WE DON'T KNOW from the IPCC summary about global surface temperatures.********

1. How many temperature stations are there in the world throughout the data collection period?

2. Where were these temperature stations?

3. Do the locations of these stations potentially confound the readings? (E.g. were most of them in urban areas, where temperatures are higher for artificial reasons and would increase with population growth? Does not
having data from Greenland/Arctic and the Antartic effect average global surface temperatures?)

4. What is the precision of the thermometers at these stations throughout the data collection period? Can they distinguish between fractions of a degree Celcius? If they are precise to fractions of a degree for most of the data's history, are changes of less than one degree accurate, significant, and reliable?

5. What IS the average global surface temperature? What is the range of raw temperature measurements every year? What is the standard deviation (SD) of raw temperature data? For example, do they have a 150 degree range from -89 Celcius to 59 Celcius, with an average temperature of -15 Celcius and an SD
of 25 degrees? If temperatures range globally from -89 to 59 degrees, is an increase of the mean temperature from -15.0 degrees to -14.4 degrees over 100 years significant? In this context, is an increase of 0.2 C/ decade in minimum and maximum temperatures significant?

Another way to look at this question is to ask the following hypothetical: 1) Given: The IQ has a mean of 100, ranging mostly from 55 to 145. 2) Given: The mean IQ has increased from 100 to 100.6 over the last 100 years. 3) Question: Are people getting smarter? 4) Corollary question: Are people getting significantly smarter that we have to change our education policies?

6. How does the average surface temperature of land compare vs. ocean? What is the range and SD of raw ocean temperatures? Is an increase of 0.04 degrees / decade in ocean temp significant?

7. Were any raw data excluded from calculations? How much and why?

8. How does a 30 year cooling trend while CO2 levels were steadily increasing fit in with the theory of greenhouse gases causing the warming?
How does regional cooling trends fit in with global warming?

These are just some questions that came to the top of my head, and not an exhaustive list.

I don't have time to address all the rest of the variables like sea level increases right now. But my comments would fall in the same vein. We have to look at what they don't tell us, as well as what they do. As critical thinkers as I hope we all are, we have to ask these questions before we jump to conclusions.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 6:31 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070301/sc_afp/usweather_070301184410;_yl
t=AsqC2pS_mmiVqvHEvAojJ0LMWM0F
"WASHINGTON (AFP) - A massive late winter storm swept across the United States Thursday, dumping snow on the north and spinning tornadoes to the south, killing at least one person."

?????

I thought tornadoes were late-summer events. Anyone care to chime in on this?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 1, 2007 10:53 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Yeah, they are a late-summer event. And early summer and late fall and early fall and winter etc. They tend to happen all year round, but late spring/early summer (March, April and May), not late summer, tends to bring the most tornadoes. So this recent event isn’t particularly unusual.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 2, 2007 6:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I looked it up. They do occur in all seasons. Where I come from late summer is peak season.

I think it would be interesting to see of the peak season shifts at all, since people have already compiled historical data.

http://weather.about.com/od/tornadoe1/ss/tornadointro_3.htm

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 17, 2007 5:22 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Just found this video:

The Great Global Warming Swindle (British TV, Channel 4, 1 hr 14 min)

http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:55 PM

THUNDAR

THAT video makes more sense than all the other crap. It also explains why Venus and Mars are also showing a near identical temperature increase.

But face it, even if mankind were responsible and everyone in the US stopped driving, using electricity and reverted to the stone-age tomorrow, it would not change a damned thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 18, 2007 2:59 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just found this video:

The Great Global Warming Swindle (British TV, Channel 4, 1 hr 14 min)

http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

Here's a link to the Channel 4 site about the program.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swin
dle/index.html

Looks like I got some wathcing and reading to do.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:06 AM

Excellent video, CTS, thanks for linking it.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 18, 2007 9:39 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Bump

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 19, 2007 7:24 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Anti PN bump

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 10:36 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just found this video:

The Great Global Warming Swindle (British TV, Channel 4, 1 hr 14 min)

http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

Well, I was wondering why after this link was up, there was an end to posts from the believers in GW. What an amazing video. This one link bitch slapped all the posts and data you guys were touting. Man, I knew it was BS before I watched this. Another good one can be seen on youtube....search: Junk science global warming myths from the Internet skeptic....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 10:45 AM

Reminds me of another thread that deserves to be resurrected, I'll do that now.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 9:53 AM