posted May 20, 2010 12:54 PM            

That's the reason you are almost universally wrong and show you ignorance...especially on science, the English language and anything whatsoever which calls for analysis, reason, logic and rational thought.

posted May 21, 2010 11:44 AM            

If only you had a smidgeon of credibility.

quote:

---

One would think you would have learned your lessons by now; but alas, you continue down the same dead end streets.

---

posted May 22, 2010 09:08 AM            

I could tell by what you were saying that you were clueless. I could also tell you were a leftist leaning member so I sent you to leftist websites.

It just never occurred to me you would remain clueless and need to continually seek the opinion of others to have something to say here.

Your condition is really my fault acoustic. I should have sent you to American Thinker, the Washington Times, Wall Street Journal and others who have their heads screwed on straight.

Oh yeah, and also here:
http://www.sepp.org/

"The Science & Environmental Policy Project was founded in 1990 by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer on the premise that sound, credible science must form the basis for health and environmental decisions that affect millions of people and cost tens of billions of dollars every year.

A non-profit, 501(c)3 educational group, its mission was to clarify the diverse problems facing the planet and, where necessary, arrive at effective, cost-conscious solutions.

Over the years, SEPP's authoritative critiques of UN documents used to shore up the Climate Treaty negotiated at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro "Earth Summit" have been widely quoted. Its debunking of NASA's announcement of "record" chlorine in the Arctic stratosphere (the "ozone hole over Kennebunkport") attracted the attention of the press and Congress. The Project has been tapped by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill for objective, science-based information on global warming, ozone depletion, chemical risk, clean air standards, and other issues. The Project has been cited hundreds of times by the major news media. Articles and editorials by SEPP-affiliated scientists have been published in leading journals and newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, Detroit News, Chicago Tribune, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Memphis Commercial-Appeal, Seattle Times, Orange County Register, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, New Straits Times (Malaysia), and Finanz und Wirtschaft (Switzerland), among many others.

posted May 22, 2010 08:09 PM            

I'm not the member here who parrots the ideas and concepts of others.

I find credible writers to back up my own opinions. When I find something in an article I know is not credible, I avoid that writer in the future.

You on the other hand never think beyond what you're being told, never question and almost never provide any commentary of your own. Their opinion IS your opinion.

Dr Fred Singer is the foremost expert in the field of climate science. What Singer says makes sense.

What your intellectual pygmies say makes no sense and is therefore non-sense.

posted May 23, 2010 12:02 PM            

quote:

---

I'm not the member here who parrots the ideas and concepts of others.

---

You're fooling yourself if you believe this.

quote:

---

You on the other hand never think beyond what you're being told, never question and almost never provide any commentary of your own. Their opinion IS your opinion.

---

Considering that I spend the bulk of my time refuting your nonsense, this makes sense. You want to post some unfounded or ill-conceived idea; I will form a more intellectually sound argument to counter. I'm not going to just put out a counter opinion when I can back up that opinion with either the factual truth, or more credible opinion.

quote:

---

Dr Fred Singer is the foremost expert in the field of climate science. What Singer says makes sense.

What your intellectual pygmies say makes no sense and is therefore non-sense.

---

posted May 23, 2010 01:19 PM            

In fact acoustic, I've offered in the past to engage you on most any subject...just using our own knowledge and without resorting to any outside opinions or resources.

posted May 30, 2010 09:55 AM            

Rejecting my offer was a reasonalbly smart move on your part.

On another front, the main stream media are starting to buckle under the weight of scientific fact that man made global warming is a hoax, con, scam and hysterical religious doctrine being spewed by the far radical left.

They even admit..now, that the issue is not "settled science" among scientists. But, what else could they do considering the institutional fraud uncovered at East Anglia University, not to mention the fraud of Mann's Hockey Stick graph and the erroneous and misleading reports published by IPCC.

They know they've lost the argument over man made global warming and they've also lost support among the peoples of Europe and the United States. This issue is now very far down the list of things people are concerned about.

May 29, 2010
Are Climate Alarmists losing the Mainstream Media?
Marc Sheppard

In the past week, two mainstream media giants have apparently recognized that the debate over manmade global warming is far from over.

On Monday, the NY Times broke with years of blatant warmist bias in reporting that Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons. The article cited a February BBC survey which “found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that ‘climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,’ down from 41 percent in November 2009.” The Times attributed the public opinion swing in Great Britain and similar shifts in Germany and the US to what it referred to as “a series of climate science controversies unearthed and highlighted by skeptics since November.” In other words, the climate fraud uncovered at the University of East Anglia (aka Climategate) and the multitude of errors uncovered in the latest IPCC (AR4) report.

Of course, the Times abhor the new public awareness as it “will make it harder to pass legislation like a fuel tax increase and to persuade people to make sacrifices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” But shouldn’t facts drive policy? Not according to Greenpeace spokesman Ben Stewart, quoted by the Times complaining that “[l]egitimacy has shifted to the side of the climate skeptics, and that is a big, big problem.”

Really?

Now Newsweek has joined the newly aware, but with a dash more honesty. In a piece titled Uncertain Science, the normally climate alarm sounding magazine has also acknowledged the turning tide:
Blame economic worries, another freezing winter, or the cascade of scandals emerging from the world’s leading climate-research body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But concern over global warming has cooled down dramatically. In über-green Germany, only 42 percent of citizens worry about global warming now, down from 62 percent in 2006. In Britain, just 26 percent believe climate change is man-made, down from 41 percent as recently as November 2009. And Americans rank global warming dead last in a list of 21 problems that concern them, according to a January Pew poll.

Now, such news from the MSM would normally be followed by a lengthy sermon about the effects of a well-funded “denial” machine and simple-minded fools confusing weather with climate. Or, as witnessed by the Times piece, how easily misled are the public by “denier” tricks. But Newsweek’s Stefan Theil instead broke with the usual alarmist ad-hominem and declared that “[t]his is no dispute between objective scientists and crazed flat-earthers.” Writes Theil:
The lines cut through the profession itself. Very few scientists dispute a link between man-made CO2 and global warming. Where it gets fuzzy is the extent and time frame of the effect. One crucial point of contention is climate “sensitivity”—the mathematical formula that translates changes in CO2 production to changes in temperature. In addition, scientists are not sure how to explain a slowdown in the rise of global temperatures that began about a decade ago.

While not entirely accurate (more than a few scientists reject the notion of CO2-influenced warming outright), by publishing those words Newsweek has gone where few (if any) left-leaning newsmagazines have gone before – admitting that there’s a problem with the “science is settled” mantra.

Needless to say, Theil’s take-away from a continuing climate debate isn’t likely to please the Cap-and-Tax-and-Control crowd:
There are excellent reasons to limit emissions and switch to cleaner fuels—including an estimated 750,000 annual pollution deaths in China, the potential to create jobs at home instead of enriching nasty regimes sitting on oil wells, the need to provide cheap sources of power to the world’s poorest regions, and the still-probable threat that global warming is underway. At the moment, however, certainty about how fast—and how much—global warming changes the earth’s climate does not appear to be one of those reasons.

Okay, so he can’t help clinging to a “still-probable threat that global warming is underway,” which I suppose implies an anthropogenic cause, but at least he acknowledges that further unbiased investigation must precede any policy decisions.

Of greater note -- the same powerhouse publication that in its August 2007 cover story -- The Truth about Denial -- described climate skepticism as “an undermining of the science” now challenges the same AGW orthodoxy it once preached.

posted May 30, 2010 12:20 PM            

latest disgusting act i heard about - on a conservative talk show yesterday - is how they offered clean-up jobs to the newly unemployed fishermen in the gulf and gave out contracts to be signed. now the fishermen should have known better, in my opinion, but signed these contracts only to discover that they were waivers to any further claims against BP for damages of any kind.

fortunately a federal judge has nullified these anti-indemnity contracts and the suits are piling up by the minute. now BP wants the pre-trial qualification of these suits to be conducted by a texas judge who has been working for big oil for years!! do they ever give up the shenanigans?

i'm sure a few fishermen are thanking god for that fed judge who saw what they had missed.

posted May 30, 2010 01:03 PM            

To which conservative talk radio show do you listen?

I haven't heard about any hidden waiver of rights contained in any employment contract issued by British Petroleum.

I find it hard to believe BP lawyers would permit such a clause. No US Court would uphold that waiver because Courts would find it "unconscionable" and therefore void.

There's a lot of blather about the oil spewing into the Gulf contributing to "global warming". It's just that...blather. The effects are and will remain negligible considering the small amount of increase of solar radiation absorbed. Further, from what I've seen, absorption might decrease because some of the oil has turned a orange color and orange is not as efficient an absorber as the usual dark color of sea water itself.

posted May 30, 2010 01:17 PM            

there is going to be a major impact on wildlife and probably an increase in algae all of which will have more than a "minimal" impact on the foodchain, probably an increase in insects since their natural predators will be reduced, and this may spread around the world in time. whether or not this makes us warmer is only a small part of the problem.

i personally think our impact on earth is minimal. it is earth's impact on us that is really the problem. she will survive but will we? i am sure with time earth will go through more transformations and settle herself down again. i am not worried, ultimately, about the planet. insects and other species can mutate at a pretty quick clip too, but WE need decades if not centuries to adapt...

i don't remember the guy's name unfortunately. he was on my local fox station yesterday evening and i suspect other saturday evenings as well.

posted June 01, 2010 12:59 PM            

quote:

---

I can see why you wouldn't want to debate me...or anyone else based on what you actually know, without recourse to the opinions of others acoustic.
Rejecting my offer was a reasonalbly smart move on your part.

---

Always posturing...

I know why you want to debate based on what you supposedly know. You've demonstrated it over and over again right here. When untethered by facts you think your authoritative manner will pass you off as an authority. You're just fine as long as the facts don't matter. In a debate, however, the facts DO matter. They matter a lot.

So don't bother trying to play games with me. I see right through you. I know your manner. I know your tactics. They're neither smart nor wise. You're an authority on next to nothing, and get things wrong on an extremely frequent basis.

______________________________

Your article doesn't prove that MSM is changing it's view. The Times piece reported, according to your article, that public opinion has swayed. That doesn't change the science. Newsweek reported the same. The author's quote starts on the right track acknowledging that very few scientists dispute the link between man-made CO2 and global warming, but he gives too much credence to the sceptics when he declares the science fuzzy. Certainly there is more to know about the science, but they have, in fact, explained the slowdown in the rise in global temperatures.

posted June 02, 2010 08:25 AM            

The suppositions, innuendos, rumors, outright lies and cockeyed extremist comments you've made here over the years put you right at the top of the "know nothing" list.

The climate of the 20th century was in no way out of the ordinary. A rise of .7*C is well within the boundaries of variability historically. Almost all..if not all of the temperature increase has been given back over the last 11 years.

It was almost 2 degrees warmer in the Medieval Warm Period from about 1000 AD to 1350 AD than in the 20th century...and acoustic...CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were MUCH LOWER then than they are now. CO2 does not trigger warming trends. Variability of the sun's radiation output drives temperature increases. About 800 years later, CO2 concentrations rise.

The MSM are now attempting to cover their sorry as$es for having pushed the kook theory of man made global warming in conjunction with the fraud and con artists who posed as "scientists".

posted June 02, 2010 11:08 AM            

What I won't allow is a vacuum devoid of facts for you to proclaim yourself right. What I won't allow is your continued avoidance of facts. That's what you're asking for. You want all the facts to go away so that you have a better chance of competing. It's intellectually dishonest, which is par for the course for you, but it's not for me.

As far as a "know nothing" list. I'm afraid you'd be far closer to the top than I ever could be. You can't look at information objectively. You always must look at information with an already formed opinion in hand. That paralyzes you from making good analysis. This has been born out time and time again.

posted June 15, 2010 09:38 AM            

It's a sucker's bet acoustic.

posted June 15, 2010 12:21 PM            

Jwhop!

I've already told you how STUPID this idea is. You want to debate without FACTS, or should I more precisely say, "Expert opinion?" How dumb is that? It's absolutely ludicrous.

As I said before, I can see why you'd be attracted to this idea. You believe that in the absense of facts, science, or expertise, that what you say will be taken to be more authoritative. It won't. Anyone fact-checking you will find you wrong, just as I always do.

Sure, facing actual scientific expertise is daunting, but there's no reason you should be excused from facing what's rational.

quote:

---

Not 10% of what you accept as holy writ is in any way true.

---

This is wholly ironic from the guy who believes he can school someone whilst standing against the prevailing science.

posted June 15, 2010 02:28 PM            

quote:

---

What is at issue here acoustic is that you don't KNOW much of anything

---

Need I remind you that Mercury is my chart ruler? I'm constantly absorbing information. It's not that I don't know much of anything. The issue is that YOU FEEL as if you KNOW everything. Objectively, you have serious cognitive problems. You don't put information together logically or coherently. In this instance, you're trying to claim that real scientists with credentials you can't begin to touch know less that YOU do. That's crazy. Straight up. You don't study the climate, do you? You don't publish papers in scientific journals regarding the climate, do you? You don't have a position. You are not even a credible dissenter on this.

Now, IF you had a strong position, it would be characterized by an assertion of facts or expert opinion.

Since you don't have a strong position, you try:

- Disparaging credible scientists
- Promoting a single scientist on Big Oil's payroll
- Moronic (due to irrelevance) personal tactics
- Making simplistic claims that have already been addressed by the scientific community

It couldn't be more clearly illustrated that you've lost the plot on this one. You've given up even trying to debate the real issue (global warming). How do you not understand this? I don't think it requires a particularly special level of intelligence to recognize you can't debate this subject. You have no platform from which to do so.

Now let me illustrate for you how STUPID this notion of debating without reference is. I'll cast myself in the roll of you just so you GET IT.

Me: Martians are holding a steady, subtle laser beam on us, and that's why the Earth is warming.

You: That's ridiculous! There are no Martians.

Me: Well, this is what I KNOW. Hell, everyone knows it. Clearly, you don't know enough about it to debate me.

You: That's ridiculous. That's utterly retarded. I've never heard such a stupid thing in all my life.

Me: But without the ability to fact-check anything, you have to accept it as true, right? Those are the rules.

_______________________

posted June 15, 2010 11:20 PM            

Btw, your phony conversation with me...which never happened is more of you acting stupidly...as O'Bomber would say.

Too bad all your so called experts in climate science are phonies and frauds...who have been caught falsifying documents, hiding data and manipulating data to fit their pre-conceived theories of man made global warming.

Perhaps the smartest thing you've done here is choose to not debate me on the basis of what you know.

You definitely aren't smarter than a 5th grader.