Climate facts to warm to

[archeiron]

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.

The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".

Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.

It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.

THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.

The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".

What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"

The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.

Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?

While I will certainly verify the facts when I have some spare time, this was an interesting, if unsurprising, read for me. I thought you all might like this.

[Leonaerd]

Interesting indeed.

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

I can't wait to see all the backpeddling.

[Kaldaur]

Backpeddling? I have sold you no wares, sir!

[Asheran Mojomaster]

I've read quite a few articles such as this one. It seems most of the data shows that, if anything, we are slipping into an ice age. The sun is slipping into low output mode, and the past year was the largest drop in temperature ever recorded. I've never really believed in global warming, but I would definitely prefer the heat over cold...

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Yeah, but have you read the IPCC report?

[Nick]

You still haven't, so you're sitting in a 100% uninformed situation at best, and pathetically ignorant at worse, and need to shut the fuck up and fuck off this board, because you're a stupid stupid wee man and a shitty troll.

I don't exactly see Biologists as experts in the field of climate change, or unqualified think tank members for that matter. Since when did once scientist who specialises in Biology become some sort of learned legitimate source of information for occurences in the atmosphere?

Sure let's just believe whatever anyone tells us, no matter if they have no clue what they are talking about - that sure is scientific and logical

[Asheran Mojomaster]

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.asp ... 9412587175

"Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.

In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.

As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance."

[Zaelath]

The Australian is so right-wing that my flatmate came home the other day from reading his Father's copy telling me the Stolen Generation was 68 kids, which doesn't gel too well with:

According to the Bringing Them Home Report, at least 100,000 children were removed from their parents, and the figure may be substantially higher (the report notes that formal records of removals were very poorly kept).

So, yeah, whatever. I'd rate this report up with something from The Enquirer.

Doesn't mean it's not right, or that there isn't stuff we don't understand, but it's hardly a smoking gun.

[Asheran Mojomaster]

The Australian is so right-wing that my flatmate came home the other day from reading his Father's copy telling me the Stolen Generation was 68 kids, which doesn't gel too well with:

According to the Bringing Them Home Report, at least 100,000 children were removed from their parents, and the figure may be substantially higher (the report notes that formal records of removals were very poorly kept).

So, yeah, whatever. I'd rate this report up with something from The Enquirer.

Doesn't mean it's not right, or that there isn't stuff we don't understand, but it's hardly a smoking gun.

Any of these more reliable?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... ahead.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-year ... oling.html

[Zaelath]

Well, the middle one is a right-wing think tank, and the other two I didn't even bother to click on to be honest.

You tell me how reliable they are, all I'm saying is The Australian is a joke for a broad sheet.

[Funkmasterr]

The Australian is so right-wing that my flatmate came home the other day from reading his Father's copy telling me the Stolen Generation was 68 kids, which doesn't gel too well with:

According to the Bringing Them Home Report, at least 100,000 children were removed from their parents, and the figure may be substantially higher (the report notes that formal records of removals were very poorly kept).

So, yeah, whatever. I'd rate this report up with something from The Enquirer.

Doesn't mean it's not right, or that there isn't stuff we don't understand, but it's hardly a smoking gun.

Any of these more reliable?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... ahead.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-year ... oling.html

We have been over this before. If the article/study/data posted is not something that was published by the IPCC it is invalid, the people making the claims/doing the studies are not in a position to talk about it, etc. Don't waste your time.

[Zaelath]

We have been over this before. If the article/study/data posted is not something that was published by the IPCC it is invalid, the people making the claims/doing the studies are not in a position to talk about it, etc. Don't waste your time.

Sorry Funk, you can't come out waving the "IPCC is biased and has a secret agenda" flag one day. Then get pissy because I view the right-wing reports as dubious, when they have a known agenda: "Fuck you and your children, I got mine."

And why are they always in an interview format anyway?

Never mind, I worked that one out, it's because it's a lot easier to dodge research and let someone push their agenda if you just interview them and let them say "what other people said".

However, I'm finding some discrepancies e.g:

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

All gases absorb infrared radiation, but some are particularly effective. Water vapor is the
most important greenhouse gas, mostly because it is so abundant. Next in importance are
carbon dioxide and methane. Water vapor varies naturally, but human activities have produced
significant amounts of additional atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane, particularly since
the start of the industrial revolution in the late eighteenth century. (Current United States per
capita production of carbon dioxide is about six tons per year.) As early as a century ago scientists
speculated that increasing carbon dioxide from burning coal and oil might warm the
Earth. And as Earth warms, evaporation increases, sending more water vapor into our atmosphere.

Although originally designed to measure atmospheric water vapor and temperature for weather forecasting, scientists working with the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on the NASA Aqua Spacecraft are now using AIRS to observe atmospheric carbon dioxide. Scientists from NASA, NOAA, ECMWF, UMBC, Princeton and CalTech using several different methods are measuring the concentration of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere (about 8 km above the surface). The global map of carbon dioxide above, produced by AIRS Team Leader Dr. Moustafa Chahine at JPL, shows that despite the high degree of mixing that occurs with carbon dioxide, the regional distribution can still be seen by the time the gases reach the mid troposphere. Climate modelers are currently using the AIRS data to understand the global distribution and transport of carbon dioxide and improve their models.

I've looked (have you?) but I can't find anything on the NASA Aqua site supporting her assertions.

[Funkmasterr]

We have been over this before. If the article/study/data posted is not something that was published by the IPCC it is invalid, the people making the claims/doing the studies are not in a position to talk about it, etc. Don't waste your time.

Sorry Funk, you can't come out waving the "IPCC is biased and has a secret agenda" flag one day. Then get pissy because I view the right-wing reports as dubious, when they have a known agenda: "Fuck you and your children, I got mine."

And why are they always in an interview format anyway?

I'm not disputing your right to not agree with any given article. But everything that has been posted that does not conform 100% to the IPCC report has been immediately tagged as BS by anyone that supports the IPCC's theories/research. And frankly, it's getting pretty fucking old. It's just another level of hypocrisy here on VV, they yell and rant because I won't read several hundred pages full of what I consider bullshit propoganda, yet they don't even humor the idea that any of these other scientists could be right, even a little bit (even if they claim they do.)

So why bother even having this conversation? It can't still be truly entertaining/stimulating for anyone here to revisit this topic over and over.

[Truant]

I thought you weren't posting here anymore?




again.

[Zaelath]

I'm not disputing your right to not agree with any given article. But everything that has been posted that does not conform 100% to the IPCC report has been immediately tagged as BS by anyone that supports the IPCC's theories/research. And frankly, it's getting pretty fucking old. It's just another level of hypocrisy here on VV, they yell and rant because I won't read several hundred pages full of what I consider bullshit propoganda, yet they don't even humor the idea that any of these other scientists could be right, even a little bit (even if they claim they do.)

So why bother even having this conversation? It can't still be truly entertaining/stimulating for anyone here to revisit this topic over and over.

I can kinda understand that, but at least the IPCC stuff is sourced and referenced properly. What's the source for any of the "report" above? At best it's hearsay, at worst it's deliberately putting false statements into the mouths of more credible organisations than "a right-wing think tank that has a biologist as it's climate mouthpiece".

And really, I've yet to see anything credible posted from the other side. I can see how that can be tiring for you, but can you see how reading dross like the above can be tiring for me? It's like the bad old days when my father would forward on any of those bullshit "VIRUS ALERT!!!!!" emails.

[Funkmasterr]

I'm not disputing your right to not agree with any given article. But everything that has been posted that does not conform 100% to the IPCC report has been immediately tagged as BS by anyone that supports the IPCC's theories/research. And frankly, it's getting pretty fucking old. It's just another level of hypocrisy here on VV, they yell and rant because I won't read several hundred pages full of what I consider bullshit propoganda, yet they don't even humor the idea that any of these other scientists could be right, even a little bit (even if they claim they do.)

So why bother even having this conversation? It can't still be truly entertaining/stimulating for anyone here to revisit this topic over and over.

I can kinda understand that, but at least the IPCC stuff is sourced and referenced properly. What's the source for any of the "report" above? At best it's hearsay, at worst it's deliberately putting false statements into the mouths of more credible organisations than "a right-wing think tank that has a biologist as it's climate mouthpiece".

And really, I've yet to see anything credible posted from the other side. I can see how that can be tiring for you, but can you see how reading dross like the above can be tiring for me? It's like the bad old days when my father would forward on any of those bullshit "VIRUS ALERT!!!!!" emails.

I can see your point but I still disagree. At least you responded to me instead of being a prick (no i'm not being sarcastic.)

[Zaelath]

I can see your point but I still disagree. At least you responded to me instead of being a prick (no i'm not being sarcastic.)

Fair enough, and TBH, I generally try to respond in kind...

[Winnow]

Huge Antarctic ice chunk collapses

Had to use the huge font size because huge was in the title.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03 ... index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A chunk of Antarctic ice about seven times the size of Manhattan suddenly collapsed, putting an even greater portion of glacial ice at risk, scientists said Tuesday.

Satellite images show the runaway disintegration of a 160-square-mile chunk in western Antarctica, which started Feb. 28. It was the edge of the Wilkins ice shelf and has been there for hundreds, maybe 1,500 years.

This is the result of global warming, said British Antarctic Survey scientist David Vaughan.

Because scientists noticed satellite images within hours, they diverted satellite cameras and even flew an airplane over the ongoing collapse for rare pictures and video.

"It's an event we don't get to see very often," said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. "The cracks fill with water and slice off and topple... That gets to be a runaway situation."

While icebergs naturally break away from the mainland, collapses like this are unusual but are happening more frequently in recent decades, Vaughan said. The collapse is similar to what happens to hardened glass when it is smashed with a hammer, he said.

The rest of the Wilkins ice shelf, which is about the size of Connecticut, is holding on by a narrow beam of thin ice. Scientists worry that it too may collapse. Larger, more dramatic ice collapses occurred in 2002 and 1995.

Vaughan had predicted the Wilkins shelf would collapse about 15 years from now.

Scientists said they are not concerned about a rise in sea level from the latest event, but say it's a sign of worsening global warming.

Such occurrences are "more indicative of a tipping point or trigger in the climate system," said Sarah Das, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

[Nick]

The recent Al Gore thing is pretty legitimate, and funny, comparing Global warming deniers to that of Flat Earthers. The deniers whose tragic (tragic for those with a brain) pseudo intellectualism that craves a chance to display such hysterical misplaced anti-scientific skepticism is always funny/sad though.

[Fash]

Actually it's one of the most ignorant and insane comparisons ever made. That is not how you persuade someone to agree with your argument, especially when it happens to be a flimsy idea based on questionable data.. with proposed solutions that won't have any effect on the alleged problem. The sheep whose tragic (tragic for those with a brain) pseudo intellectualism that craves a chance to display such hysterical misplaced anti-industry fanaticism is always funny/sad though.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Gore's comments were aimed at the Nicks of the world. No thought process involved at all in the comprehension of such a moronic statement. We can prove the world in round, yet they cannot prove global warming. Really one the single most easy analogies to debunk. Keep drinking Nick.....keep drinking.

[Nick]

Um...yes...they can. You just refuse to look at the evidence. Keep being a fucking retard Gino... keep being a fucking retard.

[Noysyrump]

While icebergs naturally break away from the mainland, collapses like this are unusual but are happening more frequently in recent decades, Vaughan said. The collapse is similar to what happens to hardened glass when it is smashed with a hammer, he said.

How the hell do they know it's more frequent "in recent decades". when it was discovered by satelite? Oh yeh the satelites in 1940 were specificaly designed to watch antartica...

As far as us deniers being psuedo Intellectuals... Well you got me there, I study history as a hobby, I didn't goto college and study weather physics, so I guess you're right, Im an amatuer not a proffesional scientist. But when Vikings settled Greenland in circa M Anno Domino, and made farms, that particular warming trend wasn't caused by SUVs and power plants.

So in short, I do not deny that the globe could be warming, I do deny that we need to waste billions of dollors, and give up airconditioning because we are melting the planet. Even if all our carbon emmisions warm the whole planet 1 degree, it is insignificant to what the planet does on it's own. That's not even worrying about the Sun. Or some meteor landing on my house.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Um...yes...they can. You just refuse to look at the evidence. Keep being a fucking retard Gino... keep being a fucking retard.

A picture of the world shows it's not flat. Scientists do not agree there is global warming or that if there is that is was caused by man. That, young man, is not proof.

[Spang]

Both sides have scientific data. Neither side has facts to back it up.

[Zaelath]

Gore's comments were aimed at the Nicks of the world. No thought process involved at all in the comprehension of such a moronic statement. We can prove the world in round, yet they cannot prove global warming. Really one the single most easy analogies to debunk. Keep drinking Nick.....keep drinking.

It's an analogy of mindsets, not theorums. You really are a simple creature.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Gore's comments were aimed at the Nicks of the world. No thought process involved at all in the comprehension of such a moronic statement. We can prove the world in round, yet they cannot prove global warming. Really one the single most easy analogies to debunk. Keep drinking Nick.....keep drinking.

It's an analogy of mindsets, not theorums. You really are a simple creature.

I'm well aware what it is. It is a terrible analogy for free thinking people, but dead on for you zealots.

[Zaelath]

Gore's comments were aimed at the Nicks of the world. No thought process involved at all in the comprehension of such a moronic statement. We can prove the world in round, yet they cannot prove global warming. Really one the single most easy analogies to debunk. Keep drinking Nick.....keep drinking.

It's an analogy of mindsets, not theorums. You really are a simple creature.

I'm well aware what it is. It is a terrible analogy for free thinking people, but dead on for you zealots.

That's hillarious coming from you, Mr "Stand by Your President: Thinking is not Required for Patriotism"

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Gore's comments were aimed at the Nicks of the world. No thought process involved at all in the comprehension of such a moronic statement. We can prove the world in round, yet they cannot prove global warming. Really one the single most easy analogies to debunk. Keep drinking Nick.....keep drinking.

It's an analogy of mindsets, not theorums. You really are a simple creature.

I'm well aware what it is. It is a terrible analogy for free thinking people, but dead on for you zealots.

That's hillarious coming from you, Mr "Stand by Your President: Thinking is not Required for Patriotism"

Wrong again Zae. You are incapable of understanding the importance of patriotism. You have the benefit of living in a country that doesn't have to bear the responsibility the USA does. You have no clue. It's okay. Thankfully we have people with brioad shoulders who can take you uninformed abuse while they do what is right.

[Nick]

Thankfully we have people with brioad shoulders who can take you uninformed abuse while they do what is right.

Yeah us other first world peons who weren't raised in trailers in the middle of Ohio (oh no!) should thank fuck we have people like you with brioad shoulders who can wage illegal immoral wars for absolutely zero gain for anyone.

Keep drinking Gino....keep drinking.

[Animale]

Wrong again Zae. You are incapable of understanding the importance of patriotism. You have the benefit of living in a country that doesn't have to bear the responsibility the USA does. You have no clue. It's okay. Thankfully we have people with brioad shoulders who can take you uninformed abuse while they do what is right.

And you are incapable of understanding what patriotism actually means. Unfortunately, you didn't have the benefit of growing up in a place where patriotism is appreciated in its true, uncompromised form - but that's not your fault. People are able to learn true patriotism (hint - it doesn't mean unquestioning support for those in charge) that is actually Constitutional and legal while ALSO understanding what is right.

Calling yourself Patriotic is an affront to the word. Calling others Idealogues is hypocrisy at its finest. Just because you cannot understand what scientific evidence actually is does not mean it is incorrect. Yes, the IPCC summary report is flawed, but the scientific group reports themselves lie on much higher scientific plane than the summary report meant to be read by policy makers and non-scientists (the summary report was also filtered through multiple governmental agencies before publication, which diluted its message while introducing inconsistencies). But, you refuse to read the group reports (or the voluminous references, cross-checks, and explanations therein) because you already believe you are right.

Whatever, it's your right to be unpatriotic - I just wish it wasn't my problem as well as a citizen of this fine country who tries to do what's right for retaining America's leadership role in the world (another hint - maintaining the status quo is NOT a leadership position).

Animale

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

You bore me, Animale.

[Nick]

Translation =

I'm a total fucking pussy that's never once in the history of this board had the balls to back up my laughable bullshit statements