Unreal.....

[Six]

Watching a show called " Wheelers Dealers " . Its out of the UK and two guys buy second hand cars, fix them and resale them.

Not a bad show, they're working on a Dino now.

Any way they've gone overboard on the enviro-bs in the new season. Just heard the little guy refer to " those nasty C02's".

Do these gloabal warming obsessed morons understand that without C02 our planet would be a lifeless desert ?

Do their beady eyes glaze over you when mentioned photosynthesis and how plants need C02.
.

[jmac00]

These are simple guys, if it comes out an exhaust tube it must be bad for the planet:whistle:

[Slatts]

Watching a show called " Wheelers Dealers " . Its out of the UK and two guys buy second hand cars, fix them and resale them.

Not a bad show, they're working on a Dino now.

Any way they've gone overboard on the enviro-bs in the new season. Just heard the little guy refer to " those nasty C02's".

Do these gloabal warming obsessed morons understand that without C02 our planet would be a lifeless desert ?

Do their beady eyes glaze over you when mentioned photosynthesis and how plants need C02.
.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Much like a little bit of an increase in contaminant levels in a system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

No, don't thank me, I'm happy to do your research for you.

:cheers:

[jpsmith1cm]

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

on this we agree.

When weather forecasters can do better with their radar and computers than I can by watching the horizon, I'll believe them.

Mankind doesn't even close to understand our own environment, yet we propose to manage and modify it.

:gah:

[Slatts]

on this we agree.

When weather forecasters can do better with their radar and computers than I can by watching the horizon, I'll believe them.

Mankind doesn't even close to understand our own environment, yet we propose to manage and modify it.

:gah:
Seems we've been modifying it without understanding it for some time now.

I can't comment on the meteorologists in your neck of the woods but around here their hit rate is uncanny.

[jpsmith1cm]

Seems we've been modifying it without understanding it for some time now.

I can't comment on the meteorologists in your neck of the woods but around here their hit rate is uncanny.

We don't understand the system well enough to determine if we have or have not been modifying it.

[Six]

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Much like a little bit of an increase in contaminant levels in a system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

No, don't thank me, I'm happy to do your research for you.

:cheers:

First I research quite a bit before I post things of a political or financial nature on this or any other forum.


Second you wont get any thanks from me for posting subjective garbage like that as a scientific resource.

You know how Wiki works right ???? The people who fill it's virtual pages are not vetted in the least.

But you're going to argue that based someones interpretation as presented on Wikipedia that with out a doubt anthropogenic climate change is occurring and the only solution is for massive governmental intervention in the form of punitive tax's and regulation against corporations and the tax payer.

Or crappy GM cars subsidized by the American tax payer because NO ONE wants to buy them.


That somehow dolling out billions to now bankrupt "green energy " companies and trying to shut down industries that are the life's blood of our economy is going to fix "climate change" ?

That setting up a carbon trading enterprise that charges companies and people for emitting a gas that currently in our atmosphere represents on a molecular level about a 1/25000 ratio of Co2 molecules to air is going to save us from eminent doom ?

Forget the fact that Al Gore who pushed for carbon trading was financially attached to a number of green energy companies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

You realize that a doubling of our Co2 in the atmosphere minus any outside non man influenced changes like volcano's, weather patterns, sun anomalies, etc would cause less than a 1 degree C increase in surface temperatures ?

Thats a doubling of the above ratio which we wouldn't see at current levels for hundreds and hundreds of years.

But we need liberal politicians to indoctrinate our kids through public schools with crap like "A inconvenient Truth " to save the earth.

Get a look at his new diggs off the coast of Montecrito California, According to "A inconvenient truth " it's supposed to be under water in a couple of years. Nice huh ?
http://www.worldpropertychannel.com/featured-columnists/celebrity-homes-column-al-gore-tipper-gore-oprah-winfrey-michael-douglas-christopher-lloyd-fred-couples-nicolas-cage-peter-reckell-kelly-moneymaker-2525.php

It's "inconvenient" that the University of East Anglia refuses to provide raw data to back up it's assertions that we were causing global warming even when pressed by legal methods AND when E-mails were exposed showing their researchers manipulated historical temperature data to get the conclusion they wanted.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html

I could go on and and with verifiable links ( Not Wikipedia ) that shows how "climate change" has basically been used as a tool by politicians to gain money and power but with little evidence to back up their theories people like you should know by now that you've been had.

[Space Racer]

This is one of the charts GW believers refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

This is one of the charts we GW deniers refer to:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0163026957f9970d-pi

Notice how much taller the Medieval Warm Period is.

GW deniers believe the data in the first chart was doctored by a small group of scientists with a political agenda.

GW believers refuse to consider data from charts which preceded the GW movement. For them, GW is a religion, and Al Gore is Jesus Christ.

The rest of us think it's just a cult. :)

For more climate charts, please see http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

[Six]

This is one of the charts GW believers refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

This is one of the charts we GW deniers refer to:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0163026957f9970d-pi

Notice how much taller the Medieval Warm Period is.

GW deniers believe the data in the first chart was doctored by a small group of scientists with a political agenda.

GW believers refuse to consider data from charts which preceded the GW movement. For them, GW is a religion, and Al Gore is Jesus Christ.

The rest of us think it's just a cult. :)

For more climate charts, please see http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

I dont deny climate change. How would we have climbed out of the last ice age if it wasnt for all of the Ford Excursions and Pontiac Goats ?........ wait thats not right.

Any way I deny mans impact on the climate as expressed by hypocritic politicians and. government funded scientist. All in the interest of forwarding an agenda.

[tunnel_rat]

As I recall from my hazy H.S. days, plants need CO2 like we need oxygen. So.....CO2 is bad? Oxygen good or bad? So basically EVERYTHING is gonna kill us all and the poor, fragile planet as well, huh? What, ya wanna live forever??

[WebCTRL]

Seems we've been modifying it without understanding it for some time now.

I can't comment on the meteorologists in your neck of the woods but around here their hit rate is uncanny.

I'd like to see your research for this. The last link you provided stated that most of the CO2 emitted by humans was dissolved in the ocean. I'm curious how we're changing the environment, the facts not the emotions from the tree huggers.

[tunnel_rat]

I'd like to see your research for this. The last link you provided stated that most of the CO2 emitted by humans was dissolved in the ocean. I'm curious how we're changing the environment, the facts not the emotions from the tree huggers.

That's all it is. Emotion is nice, but facts and planetary history sometime have to take precedent over feelings.

[geerair]

First I research quite a bit before I post things of a political or financial nature on this or any other forum.


Second you wont get any thanks from me for posting subjective garbage like that as a scientific resource.

You know how Wiki works right ???? The people who fill it's virtual pages are not vetted in the least.

But you're going to argue that based someones interpretation as presented on Wikipedia that with out a doubt anthropogenic climate change is occurring and the only solution is for massive governmental intervention in the form of punitive tax's and regulation against corporations and the tax payer.

Or crappy GM cars subsidized by the American tax payer because NO ONE wants to buy them.


That somehow dolling out billions to now bankrupt "green energy " companies and trying to shut down industries that are the life's blood of our economy is going to fix "climate change" ?

That setting up a carbon trading enterprise that charges companies and people for emitting a gas that currently in our atmosphere represents on a molecular level about a 1/25000 ratio of Co2 molecules to air is going to save us from eminent doom ?

Forget the fact that Al Gore who pushed for carbon trading was financially attached to a number of green energy companies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

You realize that a doubling of our Co2 in the atmosphere minus any outside non man influenced changes like volcano's, weather patterns, sun anomalies, etc would cause less than a 1 degree C increase in surface temperatures ?

Thats a doubling of the above ratio which we wouldn't see at current levels for hundreds and hundreds of years.

But we need liberal politicians to indoctrinate our kids through public schools with crap like "A inconvenient Truth " to save the earth.

Get a look at his new diggs off the coast of Montecrito California, According to "A inconvenient truth " it's supposed to be under water in a couple of years. Nice huh ?
http://www.worldpropertychannel.com/featured-columnists/celebrity-homes-column-al-gore-tipper-gore-oprah-winfrey-michael-douglas-christopher-lloyd-fred-couples-nicolas-cage-peter-reckell-kelly-moneymaker-2525.php

It's "inconvenient" that the University of East Anglia refuses to provide raw data to back up it's assertions that we were causing global warming even when pressed by legal methods AND when E-mails were exposed showing their researchers manipulated historical temperature data to get the conclusion they wanted.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html

I could go on and and with verifiable links ( Not Wikipedia ) that shows how "climate change" has basically been used as a tool by politicians to gain money and power but with little evidence to back up their theories people like you should know by now that you've been had.Slatts posts an article based on mainstream, up to date peer-reviewed scientific climatology research which you immediately scorn as unvetted and biased.

So after congatulating yourself on the depth and objectivity of your research, we find that your self-praised research consists of two articles about Al Gore and an outdated op-ed.

Not really what any moderately intelligent person would call credible.



By the way, eight independant investigations found no evidence of manipulation of data or fraud on the part of the climate scientists.



You ridicule wiki but it could have spared you from posting such laughable content.

[geerair]

First I research quite a bit before I post things of a political or financial nature on this or any other forum.


Second you wont get any thanks from me for posting subjective garbage like that as a scientific resource.

You know how Wiki works right ???? The people who fill it's virtual pages are not vetted in the least.

But you're going to argue that based someones interpretation as presented on Wikipedia that with out a doubt anthropogenic climate change is occurring and the only solution is for massive governmental intervention in the form of punitive tax's and regulation against corporations and the tax payer.

Or crappy GM cars subsidized by the American tax payer because NO ONE wants to buy them.


That somehow dolling out billions to now bankrupt "green energy " companies and trying to shut down industries that are the life's blood of our economy is going to fix "climate change" ?

That setting up a carbon trading enterprise that charges companies and people for emitting a gas that currently in our atmosphere represents on a molecular level about a 1/25000 ratio of Co2 molecules to air is going to save us from eminent doom ?

Forget the fact that Al Gore who pushed for carbon trading was financially attached to a number of green energy companies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

You realize that a doubling of our Co2 in the atmosphere minus any outside non man influenced changes like volcano's, weather patterns, sun anomalies, etc would cause less than a 1 degree C increase in surface temperatures ?

Thats a doubling of the above ratio which we wouldn't see at current levels for hundreds and hundreds of years.

But we need liberal politicians to indoctrinate our kids through public schools with crap like "A inconvenient Truth " to save the earth.

Get a look at his new diggs off the coast of Montecrito California, According to "A inconvenient truth " it's supposed to be under water in a couple of years. Nice huh ?
http://www.worldpropertychannel.com/featured-columnists/celebrity-homes-column-al-gore-tipper-gore-oprah-winfrey-michael-douglas-christopher-lloyd-fred-couples-nicolas-cage-peter-reckell-kelly-moneymaker-2525.php

It's "inconvenient" that the University of East Anglia refuses to provide raw data to back up it's assertions that we were causing global warming even when pressed by legal methods AND when E-mails were exposed showing their researchers manipulated historical temperature data to get the conclusion they wanted.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html

I could go on and and with verifiable links ( Not Wikipedia ) that shows how "climate change" has basically been used as a tool by politicians to gain money and power but with little evidence to back up their theories people like you should know by now that you've been had.Slatts posts an article based on mainstream science, up to date peer-reviewed scientific climatology research which you immediately scorn as unvetted and biased.

So after congatulating yourself on the depth and objectivity of your research, we find that your self-praised research consists of two articles about Al Gore and an outdated op-ed.

Not really what any resonably intelligent person would call credible.



By the way, eight independant investigations found no evidence of manipulation of data or fraud on the part of the climate scientists.



You ridicule wiki but it could have spared you from posting such laughable content.

[Six]

Slatts posts an article based on mainstream science, up to date peer-reviewed scientific climatology research which you immediately scorn as unvetted and biased.

So after congatulating yourself on the depth and objectivity of your research, we find that your self-praised research consists of two articles about Al Gore and an outdated op-ed.

Not really what any resonably intelligent person would call credible.



By the way, eight independant investigations found no evidence of manipulation of data or fraud on the part of the climate scientists.



You ridicule wiki but it could have spared you from posting such laughable content.

Hard to investigate when you dont have all of the facts or data. East Anglia refuses to release pertinant data under the freedom of information act . Or did you ignore my links ? For some reason I couldnt find it on Wiki.

Oh and feel free to post links to your assertions of objective investigations. or am I supposed to take your word for it ?

The links to informatuon that uncovers the climate scam are unending. I posted. 2 or 3. You posted zero.

Just the usual condensending tone and general rhetoric because someone challenged your reality. Its nothing new.

And so easy to rebut. Can you post objective resources that counters anything I said in my resppnse to Slatts ?

Peer reviewed in your reality means its the goda honest truth. The debate is over. because Al Gore has investors he needs to answer to.

Forget about the peers that dont agree that massive taxs and stifling govt regulations are whats needed to save the world from......wait for it........C02.

Its not my fault you're so easily manipulated. So easily fooled. Thats a personal problem.

[corny]

I like some of the british history shows that you can watch on you tube. Some of them even in their entirety instead of being broken up into parts.

Never have watched wheeler dealers though I did start to watch an episode on you tube and then remembered that I have no interest in automobiles....

[geerair]

Hard to investigate when you dont have all of the facts or data. East Anglia refuses to release pertinant data under the freedom of information act . Or did you ignore my links ? Your one link was outdated. You may adhere to such sloppy standards but fortunately informed people don't.


For some reason I couldnt find it on Wiki.The world is not responsible for your intellectual incompetence. There are whole pages concerning this very issue on wiki and other sources if you are frightened of wiki.


Oh and feel free to post links to your assertions of objective investigations. or am I supposed to take your word for it ?Don't take my word for it, educate yourself. I believe it was you that boasted of your research powers.





The links to informatuon that uncovers the climate scam are unending. I posted. 2 or 3. You posted zero. You posted one op-ed that was outdated.

No doubt there are links to numerous right wingnut, anti-science sources but your task is to find one that is both up to date and credible.

Good luck with that.



Just the usual condensending tone and general rhetoric because someone challenged your reality. Its nothing new.Condescension seemed the proper tone.


And so easy to rebut. Can you post objective resources that counters anything I said in my resppnse to Slatts ?First of all your reply to Slatts was no reply at all. He posted an article based on mainstream, peer-reviewed science concerning CO2 as it relates to world climate.


You post a link about Al Gore's real estate activity, a link about Al Gore's business dealings and an outdated link about the HadCrut affair.

This would be what judges call non-responsive.



Peer reviewed in your reality means its the goda honest truth. The debate is over. because Al Gore has investors he needs to answer to.Actually it means that it is provisional, subject to new evidence or re-interpretation of exsisting evidence.

That being said, peer-review is the gold standard in science.

Peer-reviewed papers published in respected science journals represents the nexus of scientific research and critical scrutiny


Perhaps in your world you feel that internet articles and outdated op-eds are the pinnacle of scientific knowledge.




Forget about the peers that dont agree that massive taxs and stifling govt regulations are whats needed to save the world from......wait for it........C02.I would suggest these "peers" publish their concerns in peer-reviewed science and economic journals if they feel their views aren't taken seriously.




Its not my fault you're so easily manipulated. So easily fooled. Thats a personal problem.This from a person who posts real estate articles and outdated op-eds in response to peer-reviewed science. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing001.gif

[scrogdog]

That being said, peer-review is the gold standard in science.

This is pretty much the crux of the matter and why I continually warn that we must seperate fact from theory. Casting doubt on a theory does not make a fact go away.

As it is with evolution, Darwin was always very careful in his work to make a distinction between his two very great but very seperate accomplishments; establishing evolution as a fact through observation, and then proposing a theory, Natural Selection, to explain the mechanisms under which the observation occurred.

But when all is said and done, man evolved from ape-like creatures whether by Darwins' proposed mechanism or some other yet to be discovered.

Casting doubt on how Global Warming has or is occuring does NOT mean that it is NOT occuring!

Debating rival theories is not only healthy for science, it is also when science is the most fun!

[Six]

geerair you got me. you won. that emoticon laughing hysterically at the bottom of your post was just the right amount of ofjective information to win over the masses who participate in the global warming debate.

No links to credible sources, no data to back up your blind allegiance, just a cartoon and cartoonish rhezoric preceeding it.

The people who are succeptible to demagoguery and scare tactics are the eco- fringes army. Useful idiots that push their radical agenda hidden under the facade of GW.

Personally I would rather have a mind of my own. The hive mind experience has never appealed to me.

[Williamsma]

The earth is 4.54 billion years old, we have been recording temperature somewhat accurately for about 100 years. There has been a lot of history before man was a participant on this world. Just using 4 billion as a number, the percentage for the amount of time they are using to push GW as fact is 0.0000025%. Kinda of weak to use this amount of time to prove a point.

We have have also been told that early in earth's history that CO2 levels were higher and temperatures were warmer. It has also been said that at those times life was abundant and plant life was lush and plentiful. So how is it that back then global warming was a good thing but now its bad? Anybody?

[Six]

Its a eco- agenda pushed by a political agenda that hides radical left wing ideology. I dont have time now but I will post multiple links that shows how deep and insidious the scam is.

[Six]

If the " debate is over" and the science is sound geerair should have no problem rebutting them.

[scrogdog]

The earth is 4.54 billion years old, we have been recording temperature somewhat accurately for about 100 years. There has been a lot of history before man was a participant on this world. Just using 4 billion as a number, the percentage for the amount of time they are using to push GW as fact is 0.0000025%. Kinda of weak to use this amount of time to prove a point.

We have have also been told that early in earth's history that CO2 levels were higher and temperatures were warmer. It has also been said that at those times life was abundant and plant life was lush and plentiful. So how is it that back then global warming was a good thing but now its bad? Anybody?

There are other ways to determine the history of temperature than the way we've recorded data in the last 100 years. One way would be to use ice cores to examine the air bubbles. The amount of isotopes in the oxygen is relative to temperature.

As for your second paragraph, it's not true. In some cases some life benefitted, but usually during the more extreme events, life as a whole suffered.

In fact, there is an interesting link to extinctions and climate events.

As a matter of fact, one such warming event illustrated an evolutionary point with regards to the giraffe. At one point, it was so hot and humid that trees grew like weeds making photosyenthesis for underlying vegetation a problem. This had a huge and intense effect on the overall eco-system and many species that fed on low lying vegetation died off.

Here's what's intersting about it; Giraffes already had long necks for whatever reason so it wasn't a matter of adaptation for them. So they survived. One could say that, in a sense, they cheated evolutionary processes as they were already adapted.

[geerair]

geerair you got me. you won. that emoticon laughing hysterically at the bottom of your post was just the right amount of ofjective information to win over the masses who participate in the global warming debate.Nice of you to concede but actually it was less about me winning than you shooting yourself in the foot.


No links to credible sources, no data to back up your blind allegiance, just a cartoon and cartoonish rhezoric preceeding it.I often make the mistake of assuming folks are more informed than they actually are.....especially those who brag about their research prowess.

The details of the investigations that cleared the scientists involved in "Climategate" were announced in all sections of the media and are still readily available on the net.

I can only conclude that your ignorance of this issue is self-inflicted.



The people who are succeptible to demagoguery and scare tactics are the eco- fringes army. Useful idiots that push their radical agenda hidden under the facade of GW.I assign little credibility or importance to neither AGW nor anti-AGW fringes.

My only guide is the science of the issue.

I would also say that this obssession you have about Al Gore and conspiracy theories is not healthy.




Personally I would rather have a mind of my own. The hive mind experience has never appealed to me.From all indications of your literary output here you have a clear copy of Limbaugh's mind.

[geerair]

This is pretty much the crux of the matter and why I continually warn that we must seperate fact from theory. Casting doubt on a theory does not make a fact go away.

As it is with evolution, Darwin was always very careful in his work to make a distinction between his two very great but very seperate accomplishments; establishing evolution as a fact through observation, and then proposing a theory, Natural Selection, to explain the mechanisms under which the observation occurred.

But when all is said and done, man evolved from ape-like creatures whether by Darwins' proposed mechanism or some other yet to be discovered.

Casting doubt on how Global Warming has or is occuring does NOT mean that it is NOT occuring!

Debating rival theories is not only healthy for science, it is also when science is the most fun!Bravo scrog.....nothing I can add to your excellent comments.

[geerair]

There are other ways to determine the history of temperature than the way we've recorded data in the last 100 years. One way would be to use ice cores to examine the air bubbles. The amount of isotopes in the oxygen is relative to temperature.Good point. Scientific methodologies allow scientists to examine climate conditions millions of years ago.



As for your second paragraph, it's not true. In some cases some life benefitted, but usually during the more extreme events, life as a whole suffered.Some win some lose.

It was a catastrophe that allowed the emergence of mammals which eventually led to man.

[Six]

Nice of you to concede but actually it was less about me winning than you shooting yourself in the foot.

I conceded that I was dealing with a individual poisoned by the propaganda of man caused climate change. Your cartoon response was typical and superficial. Like your ideology.


I often make the mistake of assuming folks are more informed than they actually are.....especially those who brag about their research prowess.

You still fail to post any legitimate data and resort to "Wiki " as a source of objective data. You fail to post any legitimate facts to rebut what I said in my response to Slatts. What good is research when your to blind to read it ? Your research is what ever agrees with your world view. Thats just a little pathetic.


The details of the investigations that cleared the scientists involved in "Climategate" were announced in all sections of the media and are still readily available on the net.

Climategate was just one example pointing to a multinational scam instigated and perpetuated by a complicit media, politicians and scientist. Remember the details of Climate Gate ?? They "LOST" data during the move ? Pertinent very important data ? Is it my fault you're too dim to realize thats a ridiculous explanation ?

You say they're cleared ? They're cleared ? By whom ? Post a link or two. I'm guessing they were cleared in your mind the day after the E-mails were discovered.


I can only conclude that your ignorance of this issue is self-inflicted.

As is your ignorance of integrity. You chose ideology over honesty. That's a personal problem.


I assign little credibility or importance to neither AGW nor anti-AGW fringes.
My only guide is the science of the issue.


But you ignore all data that questions your beliefs on AGW and sincerely proclaim all pro-AGW data to be pure as the driven snow. Your position is not one of science but one of political expedience. You define fringe.




I would also say that this obssession you have about Al Gore and conspiracy theories is not healthy.

Al Gore chose to make himself the poster child of AGW. He chose to be the lightening rod and then went out in front of god and everyone and exposed himself as a hypocrite and someone who was financially tied to carbon credits. He's getting what he deserves.





From all indications of your literary output here you have a clear copy of Limbaugh's mind.

I have a mind of my own which is more than I can say for you. I chose not to march lock step with the pro-AGW extremist. I saw the scam for what it was. I'm not beholden to a political cause to the point that I will eat whatever they feed me, no matter how compromised the foundation of that argument is.

I get push back on these types of threads because Obama went for it with the green energy scam and was exposed at the expense of billions of tax payers dollars,

[geerair]

I conceded that I was dealing with a individual poisoned by the propaganda of man caused climate change. Your cartoon response was typical and superficial. Like your ideology. I think you should re-read your post. You obviously are confused about what you scribbled.







You still fail to post any legitimate data and resort to "Wiki " as a source of objective data. You fail to post any legitimate facts to rebut what I said in my response to Slatts. Non relevant and outdated responses require no rebuttal. They are self-negating. They merely need to be pointed out.

Your response was little more than an ideological rant about Al Gore.



What good is research when your to blind to read it ?
Your research is what ever agrees with your world view. Thats just a little pathetic.Classic projection #1.



Climategate was just one example pointing to a multinational scam instigated and perpetuated by a complicit media, politicians and scientist. Remember the details of Climate Gate ?? They "LOST" data during the move ? Pertinent very important data ? Is it my fault you're too dim to realize thats a ridiculous explanation ?
You say they're cleared ? They're cleared ? By whom ? Post a link or two. I'm guessing they were cleared in your mind the day after the E-mails were discovered.Cleared by the following:

Science assessment Panel

EPA


Penn State University


House of Commons Scince and Technology Committee


Independant Climate Change Panel


Inspector General of the Department of Commerce

National Science Foundation.









As is your ignorance of integrity. You chose ideology over honesty. That's a personal problem.Classic projection #2





But you ignore all data that questions your beliefs on AGW and sincerely proclaim all pro-AGW data to be pure as the driven snow. Unlike you I actively seek out the denier evidence, views and hypotheses.

I feel confident in saying that I know more about the denier case than you do.




Your position is not one of science but one of political expedience. You define fringe.My position is not only one exclusively of science but mainstream science.







Al Gore chose to make himself the poster child of AGW. He chose to be the lightening rod and then went out in front of god and everyone and exposed himself as a hypocrite and someone who was financially tied to carbon credits. He's getting what he deserves.Political derangement syndrome example #1







I have a mind of my own which is more than I can say for you. I chose not to march lock step with the pro-AGW extremist. I saw the scam for what it was. I'm not beholden to a political cause to the point that I will eat whatever they feed me, no matter how compromised the foundation of that argument is.Your vey posts contradict these statements.


I get push back on these types of threads because Obama went for it with the green energy scam and was exposed at the expense of billions of tax payers dollars,Political derangement syndrome #2.


You speak of political expediency but it is you that continually shoehorns a science discussion in a partisan political frame.