Hitler brushed his teeth.

Therefore brushing your teeth is evil.

chimp_ninja: Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

In other words, we have no effing idea if it's natural or not. Let's assume that it is natural. That does nothing to define and address the possible impacts on our present way of life.

Can someone link me to the article where hypocrite whines about...

In her last column, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers . . . "

or the 8 years worth of variations of this?


/// never voted for bush and disagree with a vast majority of what he says, believes, supports and did. I'm just not a hypocrite with my politics.

Funny...but the biggest critics of the Heartland Inst. get their science from Al Gore

Man Made Global Warming/Climate Change is a bigger lie than "getting STDs from toilet seats"

abb3w: Hm. I wonder if Heartland has any Fark trolls on payroll?

Perhaps the Clan of Farktroll got together (that is all 16 people, and 1340 alts), and created the Heartland Institute?

qorkfiend: chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: smeegle: Dumb asses. It's already been established that the climate is changing. The particular pinch points are: Is the accelerated rate normal and what's the cause?

Why, I'm glad you asked. There happens to be quite a large number of primary scientific studies on this topic, and people have looked at them in aggregate.

From the journal Science:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd.

928 contemporary papers vs. 1 professor emeritus...hmm.

wow, I put his credentials in bold text and you still missed it. I guess it is reading skills like this that allows you to believe in AGW.

abb3w: smeegle: Is the accelerated rate normal and what's the cause?

I suppose this should be left about....

All evidence that even our greatest minds have no real clue about what the cycles of our climate really mean. We can define historical data on the order of - this happened and then that happened, but we can't precisely connect the dots to predict future impact.

chuckufarlie: qorkfiend: chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: smeegle: Dumb asses. It's already been established that the climate is changing. The particular pinch points are: Is the accelerated rate normal and what's the cause?

Why, I'm glad you asked. There happens to be quite a large number of primary scientific studies on this topic, and people have looked at them in aggregate.

From the journal Science:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd.

928 contemporary papers vs. 1 professor emeritus...hmm.

wow, I put his credentials in bold text and you still missed it. I guess it is reading skills like this that al ...

Naturally, the authors of those 928 papers have no credentials in their own right.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: qorkfiend: 928 contemporary papers vs. 1 professor emeritus...hmm.

One professor emeritis post-mortem. Reid Bryson died a few years ago.

why does the fact that he is deceased have any relevance? Do we ignore Einstein's work now because he is deceased? Your statement makes absolutely no sense except for the fact that you warmers always have to find some way to attack anybody who disagrees with you. This one is the all time stupidest - ignore HIM, he's dead.

Do you know what PROFESSOR EMERITUS means?? So, anybody who is either dead or retired no longer has any validity. Genius, pure genius.

qorkfiend: chuckufarlie: qorkfiend: chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: smeegle: Dumb asses. It's already been established that the climate is changing. The particular pinch points are: Is the accelerated rate normal and what's the cause?

Why, I'm glad you asked. There happens to be quite a large number of primary scientific studies on this topic, and people have looked at them in aggregate.

From the journal Science:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd.

928 contemporary papers vs. 1 professor emeritus...hmm.

wow, I put his credentials in bold text and you still missed it. I guess it is reading skills lik ...

I did not say that. But you want to discredit a man who was a leader in his field.

Do you know what professor emeritus means?

LouDobbsAwaaaay: smeegle: All evidence that even our greatest minds have no real clue about what the cycles of our climate really mean. We can define historical data on the order of - this happened and then that happened, but we can't precisely connect the dots to predict future impact.

I always like to get my opinion on what our greatest minds know and don't know from anonymous internet posts.

Oh c'mon. The topic itself is highly politicized. The scientific community has some skepticism in it. I'm a laymen on the subject but I think that, the climate is changing, it appears to have accelerated during the industrial age ergo, cause and affect,

Simple really, but I am not a climate expert and so I could just be talking out my ass.

Geotpf: I hear from the right wing these days is Karl Farking Rove! The fact that Karl Rove is the sane one telling his side to cut out the crap already is, well, insane by itself.


Frum and Bartlett are still trying to keep some level of empirical reality alive on that side of the aisle.

Here, too, there is little evidence that taxes affect employment one way or another. Almost half of the countries with a bigger tax wedge employ a larger percentage of their working-age populations than the United States does, and more than half of those with a smaller tax wedge have lower employment ratios.
Bruce Bartlett, NYT, 5/1/12

How about this....even if our current global warming is a cyclic natural occurrence, it's probably still a good idea to have emission controls and environmental regulations. I love the rationale that since scientists can't definitely say how much of climate change is man-made, we can just pollute as much as we want with zero repercussions. In a few generations I have a feeling that people will look at the right with the same disdain and contempt that many currently feel towards them.

thamike: heinekenftw: Hitler brushed his teeth.

Therefore brushing your teeth is evil.

This is horsesh*t. Hitler never brushed his teeth. At least, NOT ON TIME.

The issue was that Hitler attempted to floss and brush at the same time. Had he done one or the other, instead of attempting both simultaneously, the war would have turned out quite differently.

chuckufarlie: I did not say that. But you want to discredit a man who was a leader in his field.

I've discredited nobody; I was pointing out that you are deputizing a single person into your argument (and not even citing the work of that person, but a quote) as if that person should be taken more seriously than nearly a thousand peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Why are you trying to discredit the authors of those 928 papers?

ordinarysteve: How about this....even if our current global warming is a cyclic natural occurrence, it's probably still a good idea to have emission controls and environmental regulations. I love the rationale that since scientists can't definitely say how much of climate change is man-made, we can just pollute as much as we want with zero repercussions. In a few generations I have a feeling that people will look at the right with the same disdain and contempt that many currently feel towards them.

The only emission that this situation addresses is CO2. There are no environmental regulations proposed for this This is not about reducing the pollution in our rivers and lakes. Nothing about this movement will do anything to actually improve the environment.

Although they don't attribute climate change to any specific cause, the U.S. Navy believes it's real.

ordinarysteve: How about this....even if our current global warming is a cyclic natural occurrence, it's probably still a good idea to have emission controls and environmental regulations.

How about you STFU and stop with the logic and sensible thinking. This is fark ya know, we just want to lob inane insults at one another because it makes us feel smart and all.
off to the fridge :)

qorkfiend: chuckufarlie: I did not say that. But you want to discredit a man who was a leader in his field.

I've discredited nobody; I was pointing out that you are deputizing a single person into your argument (and not even citing the work of that person, but a quote) as if that person should be taken more seriously than nearly a thousand peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Why are you trying to discredit the authors of those 928 papers?

Can you say STRAWMAN? I guess if you have no valid argument, changing your opponents position makes it easier for you.

chuckufarlie: qorkfiend: chuckufarlie: I did not say that. But you want to discredit a man who was a leader in his field.

I've discredited nobody; I was pointing out that you are deputizing a single person into your argument (and not even citing the work of that person, but a quote) as if that person should be taken more seriously than nearly a thousand peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Why are you trying to discredit the authors of those 928 papers?

Can you say STRAWMAN? I guess if you have no valid argument, changing your opponents position makes it easier for you.

What are you talking about?

LouDobbsAwaaaay: smeegle: Oh c'mon. The topic itself is highly politicized. The scientific community has some skepticism in it. I'm a laymen on the subject but I think that, the climate is changing, it appears to have accelerated during the industrial age ergo, cause and affect,

Simple really, but I am not a climate expert and so I could just be talking out my ass.

It's not your personal opinion on climate change I was talking about (though I don't care about that either). It was your opinion on what our greatest minds know and don't know. How could a self-described layman possibly have any idea what the limitations on cutting edge research are?


OUR GREATEST MINDS???? Are you serious?

qorkfiend: chuckufarlie: qorkfiend: chuckufarlie: I did not say that. But you want to discredit a man who was a leader in his field.

I've discredited nobody; I was pointing out that you are deputizing a single person into your argument (and not even citing the work of that person, but a quote) as if that person should be taken more seriously than nearly a thousand peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Why are you trying to discredit the authors of those 928 papers?

Can you say STRAWMAN? I guess if you have no valid argument, changing your opponents position makes it easier for you.

What are you talking about?

Do you know what a strawman argument is?? Yea, I did not think so.

...Brought to you by the Right Wing

......Keepin' it classy since the dawn of Man

chuckufarlie: qorkfiend: chuckufarlie: qorkfiend: chuckufarlie: I did not say that. But you want to discredit a man who was a leader in his field.

I've discredited nobody; I was pointing out that you are deputizing a single person into your argument (and not even citing the work of that person, but a quote) as if that person should be taken more seriously than nearly a thousand peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Why are you trying to discredit the authors of those 928 papers?

Can you say STRAWMAN? I guess if you have no valid argument, changing your opponents position makes it easier for you.

What are you talking about?

Do you know what a strawman argument is?? Yea, I did not think so.

chuckufarlie: Do you know what PROFESSOR EMERITUS means??

"Emeritus" is Latin for "senile."

LouDobbsAwaaaay: How could a self-described layman possibly have any idea what the limitations on cutting edge research are?

Well firstly sir, I do not seek to claim there are limitations on cutting edge research. Quite the contrary.
Perhaps I did not spell it out very well. My apologies.
Considering all of the controversy and differing scientific positions one might perceive that no one really knows what the eff they are talking about.

From my humble point of view, the climate is changing. We cannot completely isolate the cause but it's a damn good bet that we are causing it and it would serve mankind well to address the issue before it gets out of hand and we are all farked.

pdee: Are Global Warming Policies Deadlier than Global Warming

Don't go exposing the warmers big plans. Have you ever noticed that the same people who believe in AGW also believe that we need to reduce the population of the planet? Have you noticed that they are also the people who believe we should return to a simpler life without all of the machines and technology?

Of course the implementation of the policies would kill people. That is all part of the plan.

thamike: chuckufarlie: OUR GREATEST MINDS????

Just an aside:. Our greatest minds have all agreed that question marks are an endangered species. It's even more of a crisis than the exclamation points. The atrocities are indescribable. I can't even use either to make my statement more poignant. Help us. Don't waste punctuation.

Thank you.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? ??????????????????

! ! !

have some of mine.

HellRaisingHoosier: Anti-Choice sign:
"Many women regret their decision to have an abortion..." [dead baby picture]

***half-mile down the road***

Pro-Choice sign:
" ....Most women don't." [happy woman picture]

That is just 31 flavors of awesome right there.

chuckufarlie: pdee: Are Global Warming Policies Deadlier than Global Warming

Don't go exposing the warmers big plans. Have you ever noticed that the same people who believe in AGW also believe that we need to reduce the population of the planet? Have you noticed that they are also the people who believe we should return to a simpler life without all of the machines and technology?

Of course the implementation of the policies would kill people. That is all part of the plan.

go on..... I just made a fitted tin-foil hat so I'm ready!