Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest forhis global warmies

On Dec 8, 2:32*pm, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-12-08, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

The earth
IS getting warmer, nobody really knows why tho. Could be man, could be
a natural swing BUT if it IS man, and the repub boobs yell, get
peoples attention over nonsense, then our kids and our kids kids are
screwed.

We're also screwed if it isn't man and we waste our time pointlessly
cutting CO2 instead of building the dykes a bit higher.

The Aztecs assumed the climate change that wiped them out was their
fault and the obvious solution was to sacrifice more humans. It's
possible their energies might have been better directed elsewhere.

I wonder if we could bring back Aztec practices after the global
warmies put our economies back in the stone age? Then we'll really see
who believes in global warming every time we call for volunteers to
have their beating hearts ripped from their living chests to appease
the god of carbon dioxide, the Carbo Doxy (slogan: "I just vant to be
alone."). I bet most of the loudest global warmies on RBT will
suddenly be dead silent and very, very small, more in keeping with the
size of their dicks than their mouths.

Omnia vincit nexus.

Cyber Nexus (1)
Pontiff
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html

(1) The cyclist who before his elevation to High Priest of the Heart
Rippers was known as Andre Jute

RichL wrote:

Gore doesn't claim to base his views on his own research.

No, he just lies repeatedly:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...ies_the_record

On Dec 10, 9:34*am, flipper wrote:
[moronsnip]
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/
[moronsnip]

Roy Spencer is a proponent of "intelligent design"--the crackpotiest
of crackpot "theories". Really--what more needs to be said other than,
**** off you ignorant dooshnoozle?

Every single reputable scientific body vs. ... a young Earth
creationist.


Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

flipper wrote:

I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and
you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near,
sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or
often, you scream it.

Just curious -- such skepticism must have roots. Has there yet been a
major "environmental" movement that proved to be over-hyped hysteria?
Conservatives often cite ozone and DDT, but researching those, I haven't
seen anything to support the claim that those hazards were overestimated.

Personally, I'd find it heartwarming that Americans were actually too
"green". I'd love to hear the argument.

"Peter Cole" wrote
flipper wrote:

I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and
you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near,
sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or
often, you scream it.

Just curious -- such skepticism must have roots. Has there yet been a
major "environmental" movement that proved to be over-hyped hysteria?
Conservatives often cite ozone and DDT, but researching those, I haven't
seen anything to support the claim that those hazards were overestimated.

Strictly speaking, 'Silent Spring' was a little over the top...
as close as I can come, sorry.
__
Steve
..

On Dec 10, 9:53*am, Peter Cole wrote:
flipper wrote:
I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and
you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near,
sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or
often, you scream it.

Just curious -- such skepticism must have roots. Has there yet been a
major "environmental" movement that proved to be over-hyped hysteria?
Conservatives often cite ozone and DDT, but researching those, I haven't
seen anything to support the claim that those hazards were overestimated.

Personally, I'd find it heartwarming that Americans were actually too
"green". I'd love to hear the argument.

I think the crux of the issue is the ability to change one's mind
given evidence. DDT, for example, is certainly a bad substance when
used willy nilly, but it's a lifesaver when used to treat mosquito
nets and residential structures in malaria stricken regions.

landotter tapped the mic and amongst other things,
said, "Is this on?" news:0e77fc98-1027-4960-906b-e38d5cdae982
@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

The
only ones left with any credibility are the skeptics.

Credibility? You gain credibility if you have evidence. It's not a
place you default to because you think someone else stepped over the
service line.

When you collect evidence not even accurate to a meter, then use it to
support your millimeter level hypothesis, then get caught in not just one
lie but a series of lies and cover-ups over it, that isn't supposed to
make any reasonable man, regardless of their location, skeptical?

--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams

landotter tapped the mic and amongst other things,
said, "Is this on?" news:86464bc1-d43d-4aac-a262-
:

On Dec 10, 9:34*am, flipper wrote:
[moronsnip]
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/
[moronsnip]

Roy Spencer is a proponent of "intelligent design"--the crackpotiest
of crackpot "theories". Really--what more needs to be said other than,
**** off you ignorant dooshnoozle?

Every single reputable scientific body

.... that got caught cheating and has now lost all credibility...

vs. ... a young Earth
creationist.


Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Perhaps you should get his Ph.D. revoked then, although it is clear that
you are nutz. Let me know how that goes for you...

In the meantime, astrophysicists are predicting Global Warming up until
2040 from our present state of cooling for 10 years (when the recently
discovered fraudulently manipulated and poorly collected data is
chucked.) Their methods appear to stand up to peer review, as do Dr. Roy
Spencer's. Unfortunately, after that they appear to say it will cool off
again, based on tracking the prime climate driver, solar activity cycles.
Better go debunk them too. Good luck because it looks like their methods
fit backwards for hundreds of millenia.
--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams

On Dec 10, 10:52*am, sam booka wrote:
landotter tapped the mic and amongst other things,
said, "Is this on?" news:86464bc1-d43d-4aac-a262-
:

On Dec 10, 9:34 am, flipper wrote:
[moronsnip]
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/
[moronsnip]

Roy Spencer is a proponent of "intelligent design"--the crackpotiest
of crackpot "theories". Really--what more needs to be said other than,
**** off you ignorant dooshnoozle?

Every single reputable scientific body

... that got caught cheating and has now lost all credibility...

*vs. ... a young Earth

creationist.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Perhaps you should get his Ph.D. revoked then, although it is clear that
you are nutz. Let me know how that goes for you...

In the meantime, astrophysicists are predicting Global Warming up until
2040 from our present state of cooling for 10 years (when the recently
discovered fraudulently manipulated and poorly collected data is
chucked.) Their methods appear to stand up to peer review, as do Dr. Roy
Spencer's.

No they don't stand up to peer review. You are lying.

Unfortunately, after that they appear to say it will cool off
again, based on tracking the prime climate driver, solar activity cycles.

Which scientific bodies say this? The Young Earth Creation
Dooshbaggery Union?

Better go debunk them too. Good luck because it looks like their methods
fit backwards for hundreds of millenia.

If a crackpot theory isn't good enough for any legitimate scientific
organization to recognize, then I'll take a pass. However--you seem so
desperate for evidence for a politically formed opinion that you'll
listen to ****ing flat earth creationists.

It happens that landotter formulated :
On Dec 10, 10:52*am, sam booka wrote:
landotter tapped the mic and amongst other things,
said, "Is this on?" news:86464bc1-d43d-4aac-a262-
:

On Dec 10, 9:34 am, flipper wrote:
[moronsnip]
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/
[moronsnip]

Roy Spencer is a proponent of "intelligent design"--the crackpotiest
of crackpot "theories". Really--what more needs to be said other than,
**** off you ignorant dooshnoozle?

Every single reputable scientific body

... that got caught cheating and has now lost all credibility...

*vs. ... a young Earth

creationist.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Perhaps you should get his Ph.D. revoked then, although it is clear that
you are nutz. Let me know how that goes for you...

In the meantime, astrophysicists are predicting Global Warming up until
2040 from our present state of cooling for 10 years (when the recently
discovered fraudulently manipulated and poorly collected data is
chucked.) Their methods appear to stand up to peer review, as do Dr. Roy
Spencer's.

No they don't stand up to peer review. You are lying.

Unfortunately, after that they appear to say it will cool off
again, based on tracking the prime climate driver, solar activity cycles.

Which scientific bodies say this? The Young Earth Creation
Dooshbaggery Union?

Better go debunk them too. Good luck because it looks like their methods
fit backwards for hundreds of millenia.

If a crackpot theory isn't good enough for any legitimate scientific
organization to recognize, then I'll take a pass. However--you seem so
desperate for evidence for a politically formed opinion that you'll
listen to ****ing flat earth creationists.

jeezus, where do I start...

Ok, about peer review....

how can anyone accept the concept of peer review when it is stated in
the "East Anglia"emails that there were attempts to discredit
contradictory science via the peer review process?

Any time there is data that does not match the official land
temperature data it is dismissed, or massaged away. like the way
satellite readings of temperature have been changed to match the
official land temperature, however they still can not explain why the
lower atmosphere temperature readings don't reflect their estimates
based on the "official land temperatures".
When tree ring data didn't support their theory what did they do? the
ommited the data that didn't match.
They never considered the problem may lie in the way they collect real
temperaure data. Why? because they could control that, they could make
it appear to support their theory.