Congress Cancels Global Warming Hearing Because of Snowstorm

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


Moments like this are why ecoscammers no longer call it “Global Warming”, but rebranded it as “Climate Change.” Because a snowstorm is climate change too, even if it keeps you from holding hearings on the effect of climate change on climate change meetings.

The snowquester has claimed yet another casualty: Wednesday’s House hearing on global warming.

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee announced early Wednesday that it’s postponing its environmental subcommittee’s scheduled 10 a.m. hearing on the state of the science behind climate change. As a reason, it cited “weather.”

If only we bought more carbon credits and tiny cars, this tragedy might have been averted.

If you’re wondering what you will be missing out on because the snowstorm made it too cold for Congress to sit in a heated stone building and discuss the weather, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee’s members include the likes of Alan Grayson, Joe Kennedy, Zoe Lofgren and Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Sadly Sheila Jackson Lee is no longer a member of the committee, despite her commitment to creating North Vietnam on Mars.

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on the Environment does have Alan Grayson on board, so you were bound to hear him yelling something about all the icebergs in Florida.

The witnesses at the hearing were going to be Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, of Cool It: the Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming,  Dr. William Chameides, who couldn’t be there anyway because he’s sick and Dr. Judith Curry of the Climate Etc. blog, who has questioned some of the manipulation of the science.

Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, a gay vegetarian, has also questioned some of the science and like Curry, claims that Global Warming is overhyped and that carbon cutting is not the solution– which undermines the entire massive green carbon industry, making him a heretic of sorts as well.

That leaves Dr. William Chameides of Duke as the conventional Warmist choice who doesn’t appear to have deviated from green theology in any obvious way. As Vice Chair of America’s Climate Choices, Chameides was there to represent the establishment and the Democratic Party, but he couldn’t make it anyway.

Lomborg and Curry are hardly on the right and they both believe in man-made Global Warming, but they dissent from some of the extreme behavior and cult-like atmosphere in the field today.

That almost makes it a pity that we couldn’t have had a hearing with just them, but it would have devolved into a barrage of Democratic attacks on both scientists.

  • Ar'nun

    We know it was really Dick Cheney's Halloburton weather machine that he used to obstruct Cap and Trade in order to continue the Right Wing assault on the O-Zone layer dooming us all.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It's operated from a bunker deep inside iron mountain

      • Kill Keystone

        Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL"

          It could also lead to you falling through the next pothole and ending up in China. I've got the science to prove the risk is "very high."

    • rodger the dodger

      I was certain it was The Evil Jooz, carrying out The Protocols of The Elders of Zion. Surely, it must be?

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Eco freaks will in no way realize the irony of this "global warming" sign, and even a full throttle arctic blast won't stop their warming fixation. After all, greenies must do what they must, most especially those who profit off the warming fraud – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/07/barack-hussei

    The Demsters and the RINOS are both in bed with this daylight thievery!

    Addina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • anor277

      Global warming does not equal anthropogenic climate change. A cold snap in DC(?) does not cancel the mountains of data that attest to global warming.

      • nightspore

        Ah, those "mountains of data". Somewhat like the mountain of data that convicted Colonel Dreyfus.

        In fact, human beings are very good at creating mountains of data. Unfortunately, there's a difference between this kind of activity and establishing genuine scientific knowledge.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Ah, those "mountains of data". Somewhat like the mountain of data that convicted Colonel Dreyfus."

          Yep. That's the mountain alright.

          "In fact, human beings are very good at creating mountains of data. Unfortunately, there's a difference between this kind of activity and establishing genuine scientific knowledge."

          Precisely correct. They need to find the right "mountain," and a better analyst who isn't so squeamish about disappointing leftists.

        • nightspore

          Actually, it was _Captain_ Dreyfus.

          As far as evaluating the evidence goes, which I see is being discussed pretty vigorously here, one important key is to go back over the history of the field. Then one finds all sorts of distortions of what people were saying 30, 40, 50 years ago. A good place to start is with Spitsbergen and the temperature increase there from 1918 to 1929. In some current databases that's all but disappeared.

      • Mary Sue

        Dude, the WHOLE POINT of studying "global warming" is to convince us all that it is equivalent to "anthropogenic climate change".

        "Climate Change" is an eminently meaningless term, btw.

      • Edward Cline

        Oh, yes. Those "mountains of data" piled up by the University of East Anglia? Has everyone forgotten that episode so soon?

        • Clark Banner

          The East Anglia "conspiracy" was debunked by 8 independent committees. No wrong doing found. No one was indicted. And no one lied except the media (as usual).

          The two quotes that the media used to convince the public were utter BS:

          ""The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

          They were talking about the energy budget and where the net flow of heat went, not Climate Change.

          ""I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

          The decline he's talking about is tree ring data.. The nature "trick" is a mathematical technique found in that Nature journal for plotting temperatures.

          You've been lied to by the conservative media about climategate. It was a manufactured scandal.

          • Frank Lee

            None of the scientists who documented the erroneous manipulation of data were consulted. All the investigations were conducted by stakeholders. One investigation consisted of an e-mail from one investigator to on fraudster asking him if he destroyed e-mails requested for the investigation. When he denied that he destroyed the e-mails, the investigation ended. All investigations were overwhelmingly discredited. Your opinion suffers from a paucity of research, just like other global warming worshipers who deny reality.

          • Clark Banner

            Penn State, the EPA, UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, The UK government itself, The Department of Commerce Inspector General, & the Nation Science Foundation were all stakeholders?

            Unfortunately for you these investigations weren't discredited, were all independent of each other and all came to same conclusions. Furthermore I would appreciate you providing proof that they were.

          • Frank Lee
          • Clark Banner

            Are you serious? You're using the Climategate Inquiries as proof? Montford lied.

            One example is he said the panels didn't include skeptics on their panels. Graham Stringer is a known skeptic who is known for advocating anti-climate change laws. He knows this as he beforehand he chatted with Stringer on his blog.

            Why are you giving me a liar as proof?

          • Frank Lee

            The mathematical trick was used by a non-statistician alarmist. Statisticians showed that using that "trick" would result in a "hockey stick" even if random numbers were used. Do the research!

            The hypothesis requires CO2 to trap IR above hot spots on earth. Years of satellite observation shows this is not happening.

            The hypothesis requires an increase in water vapor in the tropical Troposphere. Weather balloons (radiosonds) released at the rate of 300 a day since 1948 show no such increase. The hypothesis was disproved years ago, but there is too much money and ideology depending on it that the warmists continue to promote and take in other suckers like yourself.
            Or are you one of the conspirators?

          • Clark Banner

            I have done the research buddy. The hockey stick graph is also backed up by corals, stalagmites, boreholes among other data.

            Are you talking about the Christy and Spencer hyposthesis? That was disproved 13 years after the papers came out. Increased Co2 causes an INCREASE of water vapor in the troposphere. Unfortunately Satelittes are showing a warming trend in the troposphere.

            "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming… This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies." – Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere:
            Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences

          • Mary Sue

            How do they know the data from the satellites needed 'correcting'?

          • Clark Banner

            This was regarding Spencer and Christy's assertions that the troposphere wasn't warming. Their data wasn't matching up the existing data on Climate Change. So scientists analyzed their assertions. They realized the data they were collecting was flawed. They didn't account for satellite drift.

          • Mary Sue

            So were the satellites measuring the temperature for the wrong portion of the atmosphere?

            If they weren't measuring the right SPOT (ie the ionosphere rather than the troposphere, or the atmosphere rather than the troposphere), the answer is not to "adjust" the numbers. The answer is to say eff it, throw the bad numbers out, and start over. Not fudge numbers just because they don't "agree" with something else.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The answer is to say eff it, throw the bad numbers out, and start over. Not fudge numbers just because they don't "agree" with something else."

            Then the whole house of cards would tumble and they'd have to admit they don't know. That won't do.

            I love how they rarely talk about timelines too. If we had the supposed "ice age" and that melted before the industrial age, it looks like organic factors are much morel likely to blame even if they do truly discover some marginal changes in temperatures since then.

            Wait, it's due to increased populations of humans breathing. That must be it. I guess we do need to cull the human species. Conservatives please report to the 0'Bama-care center for your shots.

          • Clark Banner

            Spenccer and Christy were measuring the troposphere wrong not everybody else. After the drift was accounted for the satellite data matched weather balloon data.

            How do you suppose starting over when you don't know what went wrong to begin with? How do you not make the same mistake again? Through magic?

          • SkyHunter

            Nevermind, after seeing your CO2 to CH4 comment, I realize you do not have the inclination or capacity to understand science.

          • Mary Sue

            who are you talking to and what are you talking about?

          • SkyHunter

            All raw data must be processed. The temperature date is extrapolated from the satellite data. The hardest part is determining the upper troposphere, because the sensor also includes part of the stratosphere.

          • Virginia

            Carbon dioxide now makes up around 395 parts per million in the atmosphere, according to new data from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
            Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0306-hance-atmosphe

          • Mary Sue

            Ice cores give misleading numbers for "historical" CO2 levels. CO2 drifts out of ice bubbles and forms chemical substances known as "clathrates" which thus lowers the amount of free CO2 in the ice core bubbles. It is NOT a closed system.

          • SkyHunter

            WOW, where did you get your physics degree?
            While the age of the ice, and the age of the air is different, the ages can be fairly accurately determined by isotopic fractionation of the nitrogen.
            Clathrates are not formed CO2 drifting out of the firn. Clathrates are methane crystals beneath the sea. There is no way to rearrange a CO2 molecule into a CH4.

          • Mary Sue

            ….

            Clathrates are gas hydrates. News flash buddy, CH4 is not the only gas that can do that.

            The question isn't the age of the ice or the age of the air. The question is whether the ice is a closed system. Which it's not!

      • Hug a Polar bear

        Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

      • Fruit Fly

        Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

      • objectivefactsmatter

        The snow-covered mountains of data "prove" global warming is a FACT!

        Thanks.

        Regards, Al

    • Trevor

      Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL0Nt

    • Ben

      Snow does not debunk climate change. It rarely snows in the Arctic because it is too cold. The extra energy that is being trapped in the atmosphere by our emissions gets used to force the phase change from liquid ocean water to atmospheric water vapor (i.e. evaporation) …. so when that water comes back down in the form of snow remember how it got up there to begin with, and remember that it doesn't have to be that cold to snow. More food for thought : warm air can hold more water.

      • Mary Sue

        …it's also a DESERT.

    • Virginia

      Even a global temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius will disrupt our lives and challenge our ability to cope. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIJ

  • Toni_Pereira

    Don't get depressed, Eco-freaks. The solution for your problems is that Ayatollah-something that found out that buddhism was invented by the Jews. I bet all the oil in Texas that he has something to say about this matter…

    • Green for life

      Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

      • Toni_Pereira

        I'm catholic and bigoted toward other religions.Sorry.

  • Clark Banner

    Gee I wonder why GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) was renamed AIDS? Could it be that it wasn't just gay related after we understood it more?

    Once Again Daniel Greenfield what pathetic excuse for journalism. Zudhi Jasser is a peaceful Muslim. Does this means all Muslims are peaceful? This is the same analogy you use for Global Warming. It snows on capital hill. Does it mean Climate Change is not happening?

    Once again, debate a climate scientist…. oh wait you're too afraid….

    • Clark Banner

      The GRID Analogy is in regards to Global Warming being called Climate Change to clarify

      • Edward Cline

        Clark Kent of the Metropolis Banner: Please make coherent comments. You're making no sense. I think you're making snarky remarks about Greenfield, but am not sure.

      • Pot-good, oil-bad

        Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

    • JCS

      If global warming is such a slam dunk then why will Al Gore the Great never debate it?

      • Clark Banner

        Why is Al Gore the only name you use as if the study of Climate Change didn't exist before he started talking about it? Why not debate a Climatologist. Many are willing to debate it.

        • Mary Sue

          Yeah, and while you're at it look up Dr. Timothy Ball, and Dr. Roy Spencer, for starters. Real Climatologists that dispute the anthropogenic climate change.

          • Clark Banner

            Lol Timothy Ball is a professor of geography not a climate scientist.

            Dr. Spencer is a meteorologist not a climate scientist.

            Wow…. just… wow. This explains a lot.

          • wilbert

            Could you name a few Climatologist we could read?

          • nightspore

            Sure. Reid Bryson, H. H. Lamb, W. C. Willett, James Mitchell, Jr, Roger Pielke, Sr. (these are classical, though the last-mentioned figure is still going strong).

            For contemporary views, in addition to Pielke, check out Cliff Mass and Judith Curry.

          • Clark Banner

            I appreciate you posting this as these are reputable scientists. The aforementioned might be old as you said before, but that's fine. I might disagree with some of their conclusions but they are good.

      • Kumbaya

        Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

    • Kill all CO2

      Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Gee I wonder why GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) was renamed AIDS? Could it be that it wasn't just gay related after we understood it more?"

      It is gay related. It's just politically incorrect and socially unacceptable to notice. It's acquired very easily by having sex with infected gay men. Or men that were victims of gay rape. But you see the connection, right?

      "Once Again Daniel Greenfield what pathetic excuse for journalism. Zudhi Jasser is a peaceful Muslim. Does this means all Muslims are peaceful? This is the same analogy you use for Global Warming. It snows on capital hill. Does it mean Climate Change is not happening?"

      It's offered as an ironic illustration, not evidence.

      "Once again, debate a climate scientist…. oh wait you're too afraid"

      Science and politics don't mix well. Science should be carefully examined. Instead climate change whores just pull up more data and imply that the burden of proof is on the deniers to refute the data in real-time. That's not helpful in finding the facts and arriving at a reasoned analysis.

      If these people were sincere, they wouldn't shout down the deniers and skeptics but would publish dissenter's comments alongside their own findings. Can you show me where this is done consistently if at all? They have their dogmas and keep looking for more evidence the way anyone else with confirmation bias does.

      • Clark Banner

        It is gay related, but it's also much broader than that. Do you understand this. The earth is warming but it is also much broader than that.

        The illustration was first done by Greenfield. I'm just pointing it out.

        There is no debate. Dissenters' evidence falls short. Science is not a democracy where everybody gets a vote even if you're not a scientist. It is a courtroom jury verdict based on evidence. I'm not going to deny the evidence so you can feel better.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "It is gay related, but it's also much broader than that."

          There are more details, but it's fundamentally associated with being spread by anal sex, and then when enough of the population was affected we saw it transmitted through infected blood. That's why it's now "broader" because leftists would not accept that homosexual behavior (anal sex) can spread disease through exchange of filth via the sex organs and GI system. There are other diseases spread through sex, but you don't see people trying to lie about them.

          "Do you understand this. The earth is warming but it is also much broader than that. "

          The earth is warming but it is also cooling. That is how much broader it is. Do you understand that? It's dynamic by design, or evolution, or whatever.

          "There is no debate. Dissenters' evidence falls short."

          The dissenter's evidence is suppressed. I've never heard any greenhead quote or refer to contrary data, but I have seen it myself and it became clear why they suppressed it. We don't even have enough data to know, but they keep manufactured trivial data as if that helps fill in what they don't know when it doesn't. It just clouds the minds of the confused people who think that we have absolute proof or even a compelling case, once you've looked at the whole case without a bias to believe the leftist dogmas.

          "Science is not a democracy where everybody gets a vote even if you're not a scientist."

          We're not talking about pure science. We're talking about theories that benefit certain groups and classes of people. We're talking about theories that can be wielded as political weapons. The users of these political weapons have control over research funding.

          "It is a courtroom jury verdict based on evidence. "

          You've made my case for me because that is the problem. In a court of law, each side is required to have a chance to pitch the jury while being regulated by a judge. That doesn't happen. Science is closer to anarchy and is driven by ideology and funding. There are sciences that can be use to conclusively prove things. There are other sciences that are simply not controversial at any given time. That doesn't make science as pure as say, accounting and math where you are either correct or not.

          If we did require a "courtroom jury verdict" over controversial scientific conclusions before these conclusions were used to drive government policies, we'd all be a lot better off. You'd be a lot less smug and unable to make false claims.

          Science is NOT like a courtroom jury verdict. It's a lot closer to civilized anarchy.

          "I'm not going to deny the evidence so you can feel better."

          I haven't even heard you cite the specific theory of global warming. Over what period do you say it is warming? Show me your theory and your data. I can only recall one green fool doing that, and he lost the argument because he was held to reasonable debate standards.

          "Global warming is a fact. It happens every day."

          We know. Then it cools at night. There are also larger patterns too. What's your point then?

          • Clark Banner

            "There are more details, but it's fundamentally associated with being spread by anal sex, and then when enough of the population was affected we saw it transmitted through infected blood. That's why it's now "broader" because leftists would not accept that homosexual behavior (anal sex) can spread disease through exchange of filth via the sex organs and GI system. There are other diseases spread through sex, but you don't see people trying to lie about them. "

            Oh my God! 2/3s of all AIDS cases are from subsaharan Africa which is spread by vaginal heterosexual sex. As someone who is involved in Public Health I find your comments ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING. SHAME ON YOU. Go see a doctor. Go see an epidemiologist. Go see a viralogist. They will all tell you the same thing. My God…. and you people expect to be taken seriously?! SHame on you. THIS COMMENT IS EXACTLY WHY THE WORLD THINKS YOU CONSERVATIVES ARE ANTISCIENCE. OH MY GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!

            "The earth is warming but it is also cooling. That is how much broader it is. Do you understand that? It's dynamic by design, or evolution, or whatever. "

            Hence Climate Change.

            "
            "The dissenter's evidence is suppressed. I've never heard any greenhead quote or refer to contrary data, but I have seen it myself and it became clear why they suppressed it. We don't even have enough data to know, but they keep manufactured trivial data as if that helps fill in what they don't know when it doesn't. It just clouds the minds of the confused people who think that we have absolute proof or even a compelling case, once you've looked at the whole case without a bias to believe the leftist dogmas."

            Bla bla bla. Peer Reviewed Journals are most often then not reviewed by scientist who disagree with the assertions they are reviewing. The data is reliable.

            "We're not talking about pure science. We're talking about theories that benefit certain groups and classes of people. We're talking about theories that can be wielded as political weapons. The users of these political weapons have control over research funding. "

            The facts are the facts. If you want to make it into an issue about who it benefits that is your business. The evidence speaks for itself regardless of what your political beliefs are.

            "You've made my case for me because that is the problem. In a court of law, each side is required to have a chance to pitch the jury while being regulated by a judge. That doesn't happen. Science is closer to anarchy and is driven by ideology and funding. There are sciences that can be use to conclusively prove things. There are other sciences that are simply not controversial at any given time. That doesn't make science as pure as say, accounting and math where you are either correct or not."

            Scientists from all over the world, from different institutions, with different beliefs have tested the findings of the consensus and agree with them. 97% consensus among climatologists. Your apologia has no foundation.

            "I haven't even heard you cite the specific theory of global warming. Over what period do you say it is warming? Show me your theory and your data. I can only recall one green fool doing that, and he lost the argument because he was held to reasonable debate standards."

            You obviously are too lazy to look it up. Read a peer reviewed journal on the subject.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Oh my God! 2/3s of all AIDS cases are from subsaharan Africa which is spread by vaginal heterosexual sex. As someone who is involved in Public Health I find your comments ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING. "

            Because you don't understand the implications of what I wrote. You're a typical leftist who gets offended first and tries to understand the discourse when your state of mind has already been disturbed and limited by your indoctrination.

            "THIS COMMENT IS EXACTLY WHY THE WORLD THINKS YOU CONSERVATIVES ARE ANTISCIENCE. OH MY GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?! "

            I didn't say anything that contradicts science. You simply misunderstood and jumped like a maniac. Patient zero was gay and engaged in prolific levels of gay sex. It's even possible every human infection can eventually be traced back to gay sex.

            "Hence Climate Change."

            Yes, the climate is dynamic. We know.

            "Bla bla bla. Peer Reviewed Journals are most often then not reviewed by scientist who disagree with the assertions they are reviewing. The data is reliable."

            Not in the case of politically targeted fields. You didn't even address my other points because you can't.

            "The facts are the facts."

            Right. We're arguing over the analysis of those facts, and in some case poor handling of the data. So most of the facts are facts, but most of them are also abused in the synopsis. Very few leftists like you admit to any uncertainty. That is a huge red flag (point of concern or indicator) to any serious scientist. There's no doubt in my mind you're not a scientist.

            "Scientists from all over the world, from different institutions, with different beliefs have tested the findings of the consensus and agree with them. 97% consensus among climatologists. Your apologia has no foundation. "

            You've got a comprehensive report that essentially proves that these people are above the fray of political influence. OK, I'll just take your word for it. If you and Al Gore say that together you invented the Internet or swear that the globe can't handle another car, why I'll just obey my masters.

            "You obviously are too lazy to look it up. Read a peer reviewed journal on the subject."

            "It?" You think there is a single comprehensive theory of "climate change?" You're too lazy. The burden of proof is on you, you psychopath.

            "Read a peer reviewed journal on the subject."

            As if there are piles of comprehensive peer reviewed articles from scientists with a single coherent theory on climate change. You have never actually looked yourself. That makes YOU the lazy one, and a bad bluffer too.

          • Clark Banner

            "Because you don't understand the implications of what I wrote. You're a typical leftist who gets offended first and tries to understand the discourse when your state of mind has already been disturbed and limited by your indoctrination."

            I'm not a leftist and I'm not a conservative. Both sides are full of it as is evidenced by the left's denial of Islam and the right's denial of climate change.

            " I didn't say anything that contradicts science. You simply misunderstood and jumped like a maniac. Patient zero was gay and engaged in prolific levels of gay sex. It's even possible every human infection can eventually be traced back to gay sex."

            From an epidemiological standpoint this is why the levels of HIV were initially high in the gay community. Let me ask you why is it being spread through breast feeding and heterosexual sex in Africa? Do these factors have anything to do with anal sex? You actually did contradict science by saying, that it was primarily an anal and blood born pathogen. 2/3s of Subsaharan Africa have it because of reasons nothing to do with this (with the exception of mothers passing it on the their children at childbirth).

            "Not in the case of politically targeted fields. You didn't even address my other points because you can't. "

            I'm pretty sure I have and you haven't read one peer reviewed journal on Climate Science or HIV in your life.

            "Right. We're arguing over the analysis of those facts, and in some case poor handling of the data. So most of the facts are facts, but most of them are also abused in the synopsis. Very few leftists like you admit to any uncertainty. That is a huge red flag (point of concern or indicator) to any serious scientist. There's no doubt in my mind you're not a scientist. "

            I'm not a leftist and peer reviewed data is vetted and scrutinized by the scientific community. Have you ever presented a scientific pHd thesis? The scientists you present it to destroy you with questions and rip your thesis apart. If it doesn't stand up to evidence, your thesis itself doesn't stand.

            "You've got a comprehensive report that essentially proves that these people are above the fray of political influence. OK, I'll just take your word for it. If you and Al Gore say that together you invented the Internet or swear that the globe can't handle another car, why I'll just obey my masters."

            Really? Name dropping Al Gore gives your argument some sort of legitimacy? I guess I'll namedrop Terry Jones to prove that counterjihad is made of idiots.

            ""It?" You think there is a single comprehensive theory of "climate change?" You're too lazy. The burden of proof is on you, you psychopath. As if there are piles of comprehensive peer reviewed articles from scientists with a single coherent theory on climate change. You have never actually looked yourself. That makes YOU the lazy one, and a bad bluffer too. "

            Thanks for calling me an ad-hominem. I appreciate it. As for reading journals, all I do these days is read peer reviewed journals (including that on climate change). Oh and regarding the burden of proof: http://d3rifzqc0esuo8.cloudfront.net/news_article

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'm not a leftist and I'm not a conservative."

            You don't understand what indoctrination is.

            "Both sides are full of it as is evidenced by the left's denial of Islam and the right's denial of climate change."

            "From an epidemiological standpoint this is why the levels of HIV were initially high in the gay community."

            That was my entire point. Another point is that anyone can cloak gay sex with claims about conventional sex, so the statistics are as concrete as presented some times. When people are too certain about data that they should not be so certain about, you know that political factors are involved.

            There are people who are full of it everywhere. That doesn't mean some conservatives don't have valid points that you misunderstand.

            "Let me ask you why is it being spread through breast feeding and heterosexual sex in Africa? Do these factors have anything to do with anal sex?"

            The history of the spread of AIDS shows the relationship with anal sex.

            "You actually did contradict science by saying, that it was primarily an anal and blood born pathogen."

            Historically it was.

            "2/3s of Subsaharan Africa have it because of reasons nothing to do with this (with the exception of mothers passing it on the their children at childbirth). "

            I haven't seen that research, but even if you're correct it doesn't negate what I said. The key point is that the origin can be traced back in humans only to a circle of promiscuous gays engaging in anal sex. In theory it could be that patient zero was stung by a bee or a mosquito and it was just a coincidence. But my observation is that in every realm of "science" and society at large, leftist must try to normalize homosexual relationships including sex practices whether healthy or not. We must pretend that anal sex has the same risks as natural heterosexual sex. That is what people are indoctrinated to think. We must pretend that same sex couples can create "the same" healthy environment to nurture children.

            There is a loss of credibility when people claim too much certainty and when they suppress dissent and paraphrase it such that it sounds maniacal.

            "I'm pretty sure I have and you haven't read one peer reviewed journal on Climate Science or HIV in your life."

            May the force be with you. We already established that AIDS is related to gay sex, so why don't you show me one of those "climate change" articles that makes your case for it being "a fact?"

            "I'm not a leftist and peer reviewed data is vetted and scrutinized by the scientific community. Have you ever presented a scientific pHd thesis? The scientists you present it to destroy you with questions and rip your thesis apart. If it doesn't stand up to evidence, your thesis itself doesn't stand."

            It's getting so repetitive, like you can't or won't read.

            "Really? Name dropping Al Gore gives your argument some sort of legitimacy? I guess I'll namedrop Terry Jones to prove that counterjihad is made of idiots. "

            If Islam really was not a threat and I used "widespread consensus" that it was a threat as evidence, it would be relevant to mention icons of the movement to illustrate how it got popular without being true. The same argument can be inverted since you agree that Islam is a threat but the consensus view is that it is not. Just ask any social scientist and they'll all tell you they've got peer-reviewed articles to show that it's not a threat.

            Now do you get it?

            "Thanks for calling me an ad-hominem. I appreciate it."

            Try English if you don't understand Latin. You might be able to make your point that way.

            "As for reading journals, all I do these days is read peer reviewed journals (including that on climate change)."

            Why do you have so much trouble showing any that prove your case? You're overwhelmed and can't actually pinpoint why you can't consider what the skeptics say. Maybe you should read some history about Marx and communist penetration in the USA. Then maybe you will understand why your education failed to prepare you to analyse these questions with an unbiased mind.

            "Oh and regarding the burden of proof: http://d3rifzqc0esuo8.cloudfront.net/news_article

            Statistics on consensus. Wonderful What are the statistics for Islam as the "religion of peace?'

          • Clark Banner

            "You don't understand what indoctrination is. "

            Sure…. Just like you don't know how science works and what the peer review process is.

            "That was my entire point. Another point is that anyone can cloak gay sex with claims about conventional sex, so the statistics are as concrete as presented some times. When people are too certain about data that they should not be so certain about, you know that political factors are involved. "

            Really? Is what is happening in Africa a "cloaking of gay sex"? Have you ever talked to a virologist or epidemiologist about this data?

            "I haven't seen that research, but even if you're correct it doesn't negate what I said. The key point is that the origin can be traced back in humans only to a circle of promiscuous gays engaging in anal sex. In theory it could be that patient zero was stung by a bee or a mosquito and it was just a coincidence. But my observation is that in every realm of "science" and society at large, leftist must try to normalize homosexual relationships including sex practices whether healthy or not. We must pretend that anal sex has the same risks as natural heterosexual sex. That is what people are indoctrinated to think. We must pretend that same sex couples can create "the same" healthy environment to nurture children. "

            AIDS can be traced back to humans eating monkeys infected with the virus. A human caught it either by eating their brains or having their blood mix with the monkey's blood when chopping it up. The first people to get AIDS were heterosexuals. It did not start in the gay community. OH MY GOD. YOU CAN NOT GET HIV THROUGH A MOSQUITO. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?! Otherwise the rate of infection would be much higher. Anal sex has a higher risk than vaginal sex. This is a known fact by health experts and acknowledged by the NIH and CDC. Once again you astound me with your assumptions. Vagina sex is not as dangerous as anal sex but yes it is still very dangerous as Africa has shown. Your pseudoscience is mindnumbingly painful for me being a public health professional.

            "May the force be with you. We already established that AIDS is related to gay sex, so why don't you show me one of those "climate change" articles that makes your case for it being "a fact?" "

            AIDS is related to breast milk, vaginal sex, needles, birth, oral sex, transfusions, and yes, anal sex. Do a simple google search. As for your idiotic accusations about it being labeled as a theory and not fact here is something where you don't have to read. This guy explains why scientifc theory means fact! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW1Lpa23mOw

            "It's getting so repetitive, like you can't or won't read."

            Hey I'm not the one that never read a peer reviewed journal on these topics which he claims to know so much about.

            "If Islam really was not a threat and I used "widespread consensus" that it was a threat as evidence, it would be relevant to mention icons of the movement to illustrate how it got popular without being true. The same argument can be inverted since you agree that Islam is a threat but the consensus view is that it is not. Just ask any social scientist and they'll all tell you they've got peer-reviewed articles to show that it's not a threat. "

            Scientific consensus is not in the same category as opinion poll. It is based on consensus of experimentation and evidence.

            "Why do you have so much trouble showing any that prove your case? You're overwhelmed and can't actually pinpoint why you can't consider what the skeptics say. Maybe you should read some history about Marx and communist penetration in the USA. Then maybe you will understand why your education failed to prepare you to analyse these questions with an unbiased mind. "

            Buddy I have no trouble proving my case that humans are causing climate change. Simple. I hate Marxism and I hate communism. Read a damn journal dude. You have no idea what you're talking about.

            "Statistics on consensus. Wonderful What are the statistics for Islam as the "religion of peace?' "

            Scientific consensus is not the same as a gallup pole. Research how scientific consensus works.

          • Clark Banner

            And by the way, a bee couldn't spread AIDS if it wanted to. A bee can only sting you once. Then it dies. I am amazed at how pathetic your knowledge of vectors and science in general is amid your claims that you have knowledge of transmission.

          • Clark Banner

            And you think this data is surpressed? God, I'm just shaking my head right now. Not one public health official has ever denied this. The data is easily available through a google search. And guess what?! It's peer reviewed.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2059146

  • texasron

    Global warming advocates need to explain how they plan to reduce the number of sunspots. The sun has more influence on the weather than humans do.

    • Agenda 21

      Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

  • Dirk Pitt

    Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

    This bot-recommended comment has (nothing/something) to do with the article. But I want to win. Please click on the link I dropped link before this blog figures out everything with "climtr.lt" in the link is human generated comment spam. I want to win!! Thanks!”

    The self-named Climate Reality Project has come up with a new idea. They’re going to “find climate news from around the web and connect it with the most relevant science.” and then create a game that encourages people to post spammy links to the Climate Reality project”.

  • JGild

    Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

    • Al Gore for Emperor!

      Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

  • caroline

    Global warming also=extreme snowstorms, expect to see more (and not in a good way). http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL0xh

    • Kill oil industry

      Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

      .

    • nightspore

      Historically, climatologists have always considered that _cooling_ was associated with a greaer frequency of extreme events. This is because cooling is associated with a steeper temperature gradient between the equator and the poles.

      But that was yesterday … And since we now live in a kind of eternal present, earlier arguments however soundly based must be discarded.

  • sean71

    According to RealityDrop, Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL0Ql – However, we all know this is fairly normal weather (which varies over a 30 year cycle) and anyone betting on less snow anywhere is going to be in for a big shock when the next really big cold cycle comes along. It'll come, nothing we can do about it. Not saying when.

  • Loyal Achates

    It's COLD somewhere, therefor global warming is a LIBERAL LIE…kind of like saying that if Bill Gates is rich, then poverty doesn't exist.

    Climate 'skeptics' are the Holocaust Deniers of the science world. Too bad they wield enormous political power.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Actually it's like saying that if everyone on average is richer than ever, than everyone on average is not poorer than ever

      • Clark Banner

        I'm curious. How is a change of about 1C in temperature going to cancel out snow in Washington? Is your analogy relevant at all in this regard?

        • Mary Sue

          The question instead you should be asking is how a 1C change in temperature is going to melt snow that is habitually locked in -70 C conditions (in Antarctica). Nobody cares about melting snow/ice in the Arctic because it's already in the ocean and thus cannot raise ocean levels.

          • Clark Banner

            What you're talking about is sea ice. Look at what's happening to the land ice in the arctic.

          • Mary Sue

            When it comes to 'land ice' in the arctic, unless you're talking about Greenland, you are talking about permafrost.

          • Clark Banner

            You mentioned the the Anarctic as well. I was talking about land ice present there. It is melting.

          • Mary Sue

            um 1 degree up from -70 isn't going to cause antarctic ice to MELT.

            Now, maybe warmer WATER might be causing some of the ice shelves to be undermined (via El Nino) right at the water's edge…

          • Clark Banner

            Sorry I meant Anarctic when I said artic. My mistake.

          • Mary Sue

            The interior of the Antarctic is getting COLDER.

          • Clark Banner

            The Antarctic Ice Shelves are collapsing. Land ice is decreasing. This is fact.
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SKS2.png

          • wilbert

            No it is not a fact..it is called propaganda.

          • Clark Banner

            Yup… facts from peer reviewed sources are propaganda. You got me!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yup… facts from peer reviewed sources are propaganda. You got me!"

            Not always, but it can be. Especially in "climate change science."

          • Clark Banner

            According to you who thinks AIDS can't be spread through semen. Still waiting for you to disprove the peer reviewed data.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "According to you who thinks AIDS can't be spread through semen."

            Quote me psycho. Another leftist who fantasizes about what people write instead of working on their reading comprehension.

            "Still waiting for you to disprove the peer reviewed data."

            "The" peer reviewed data huh? Can I google that? Show me "the" (or any) peer-reviewed analysis that stakes out any claim that "climate change" is coherently understandable and clear enough to be used to influence government policy, and I won't have any trouble refuting it.

            No serious scientist would ever claim to have as much certainty as you do. I'm only wasting my time on you as a demonstration for others to benefit from.

          • Clark Banner

            "Quote me psycho. Another leftist who fantasizes about what people write instead of working on their reading comprehension."

            I'm not a leftist. According to you, AIDS can only be spread through anal tearing and blood contact.

            ""The" peer reviewed data huh? Can I google that? Show me "the" (or any) peer-reviewed analysis that stakes out any claim that "climate change" is coherently understandable and clear enough to be used to influence government policy, and I won't have any trouble refuting it."

            If you're too lazy not even read 1 journal and ask a scientist to explain it to you like any student would, then it's expected that you would think it is too complicated to understand.

            "No serious scientist would ever claim to have as much certainty as you do. I'm only wasting my time on you as a demonstration for others to benefit from. "

            Richard Dawkins doesn't even claim that there is no God. From 1 being complete and utter faith that there is God to 7 being that there is no God, he says he is a 6.9 because the evidence against God is overwhelming but there is still a little room for doubt. I feel the same about climate change. I'm a 6.9 because the data overwhelmingly falls behind that hypothesis.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'm not a leftist. According to you, AIDS can only be spread through anal tearing and blood contact. '

            Nope. According to me, you're still a leftist that can't quote me saying that.

            "If you're too lazy not even read 1 journal"

            That's a silly assumption. Sounds "ad hominem" too. I need to get some tissues. I'll be right back.

            "…and ask a scientist to explain it to you like any student would, then it's expected that you would think it is too complicated to understand."

            A lot of sound and fury, but you can't come up with anything Al Gore wouldn't also say. In other words, you don't actually have empirical data in support of a coherent theory. You have a lot of well-funded research papers that echo more or less the politically-driven consensus view: We can't say much else, but we have a lot of data that says climate change is a fact. Don't ask us anything else. It's just bad and we need to take over all energy, agriculture and land management policies. You'll just have to trust us.

          • Clark Banner

            "Nope. According to me, you're still a leftist that can't quote me saying that."

            Let's see. I'm for counterjihad, against affirmative action, for reduced spending, for border control, and I voted for Romney. I am soooo leftist!

            "That's a silly assumption. Sounds "ad hominem" too. I need to get some tissues. I'll be right back. "

            Deflecting. Answer the question. Have you?

            "A lot of sound and fury, but you can't come up with anything Al Gore wouldn't also say. In other words, you don't actually have empirical data in support of a coherent theory. You have a lot of well-funded research papers that echo more or less the politically-driven consensus view: We can't say much else, but we have a lot of data that says climate change is a fact. Don't ask us anything else. It's just bad and we need to take over all energy, agriculture and land management policies. You'll just have to trust us. "

            The coherent theory is that humans are causing anthropological warming. Once again, politics is secondary, the science is first. If it goes against your political beliefs thats your problem.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Let's see. I'm for counterjihad, against affirmative action, for reduced spending, for border control, and I voted for Romney. I am soooo leftist! "

            I said that you were indoctrinated. It's great that you can fight so much of it. Try to transcend it.

            "Deflecting. Answer the question. Have you?"

            You might want to restate the question if you feel you need an answer to something you didn't get.

            "The coherent theory is that humans are causing anthropological warming."

            That's not coherent, but it is a tiny step closer to coherency. Over what time period? How much warming? Show me that theory with the consensus you claim.

            "Once again, politics is secondary, the science is first."

            Because politics can't influence funding or bias. We know. All scientists are perfect and not subject to any non-scientific influence. We know.

            "If it goes against your political beliefs thats your problem."

            I initially took it for granted that there was something to worry about. On the surface it makes sense. I'm an advocate and practitioner of leaving things as good or better than I found them and I encourage others to act the same.

            When I probed the data and the analysis, I was often surprised out how much evidence I saw, of manipulation.

            The challenge stands. Not one of you can come up with a concrete coherent theory. It changes constantly and the only thing we know for certain is that we are not allowed to "deny climate change." You can only ask how much, how long etc because that, nobody knows. We just "know" it's "real" and "a fact."

            Mere rhetoric: "Climate change is a fact."

            Climate change as a theory doesn't go for or against my political beliefs. Lying goes against all of my beliefs. I hate liars and I try to reach out to the dupes. If there is something I can do that will certainly help the environment or help anyone live a better life, I'm for it.

            I'm against liars.

          • Clark Banner

            "I said that you were indoctrinated. It's great that you can fight so much of it. Try to transcend it. "

            BS. I'm not indoctrinated. I follow fact and evidence. You have given me nothing.

            "You might want to restate the question if you feel you need an answer to something you didn't get."

            Have you read one peer reviewed journal (the whole article) on HIV or climate change?

            "That's not coherent, but it is a tiny step closer to coherency. Over what time period? How much warming? Show me that theory with the consensus you claim. "

            The consensus is that since the industrial age this has amped up. approximately 1C.

            "Because politics can't influence funding or bias. We know. All scientists are perfect and not subject to any non-scientific influence. We know."

            That's why data is peer reviewed before it is published. Look up what that means.

            "I initially took it for granted that there was something to worry about. On the surface it makes sense. I'm an advocate and practitioner of leaving things as good or better than I found them and I encourage others to act the same.

            When I probed the data and the analysis, I was often surprised out how much evidence I saw, of manipulation.

            The challenge stands. Not one of you can come up with a concrete coherent theory. It changes constantly and the only thing we know for certain is that we are not allowed to "deny climate change." You can only ask how much, how long etc because that, nobody knows. We just "know" it's "real" and "a fact."

            You haven't read one peer reviewed journal. All your probing was superficial.

            "Climate change as a theory doesn't go for or against my political beliefs. Lying goes against all of my beliefs. I hate liars and I try to reach out to the dupes. If there is something I can do that will certainly help the environment or help anyone live a better life, I'm for it. I'm against liars."

            You're against liars if they lie against your point of view. If they lie on your behalf, then it's not a problem. This is human nature and I've observed this too often.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Have you read one peer reviewed journal (the whole article) on HIV or climate change?"

            Yes.

            "The consensus is that since the industrial age this has amped up. approximately 1C. "

            So one view is that it's been the past 50 years and the other view is that it started in the industrial age? I'm going to assume you are referring to the start of widespread use of fossil fuels like coal?

            "That's why data is peer reviewed before it is published. Look up what that means. "

            Peer review equals peer consensus. In theory, it improves the reliability but it guarantees nothing in and of itself. It's a good thing, but it doesn't make your case all alone.

            "You haven't read one peer reviewed journal. All your probing was superficial. "

            Here I am inviting you to provide me with your example of the slam dunk, and you dance around calling me lazy as though it's so easy to find. What's easy to find are hysterical conclusions divorced from the supposed data they used. But I did notice you supplied 2 URLs and your comments since then have allowed a more focused discussion, so we'll see where that leads.

            "You're against liars if they lie against your point of view. If they lie on your behalf, then it's not a problem."

            If I'm against all liars, why would anyone be lying if they agree with me?

            "This is human nature and I've observed this too often. "

            So you're a collectivist who now knows everything. No need for any further conversations. Just preach on.

          • Clark Banner

            "Yes."

            Then why did you think AIDS could be spread through a bee sting and are so clueless what peer reviewed data is?

            "So one view is that it's been the past 50 years and the other view is that it started in the industrial age? I'm going to assume you are referring to the start of widespread use of fossil fuels like coal?"

            This is the scientific consensus.

            "Peer review equals peer consensus. In theory, it improves the reliability but it guarantees nothing in and of itself. It's a good thing, but it doesn't make your case all alone."

            Peer reviewed data is from scientists who often disagree with their viewpoints, have no relation with the scientists, and needs evidence to pass the peer review process. You have no idea what you're talking about once again.

            "Here I am inviting you to provide me with your example of the slam dunk, and you dance around calling me lazy as though it's so easy to find. What's easy to find are hysterical conclusions divorced from the supposed data they used. But I did notice you supplied 2 URLs and your comments since then have allowed a more focused discussion, so we'll see where that leads."

            The scientific consensus is the slam dunk. It is based on stagalimite data, coral data, weather balloon data, satalite imagery, animal migration patterns, glacier density, etc. The slam dunk is not one but the combination of all these fields providing evidence for the consensus. If you want to look this up google search it. It's that easy.

            "If I'm against all liars, why would anyone be lying if they agree with me?"

            Let me give you an example. If you were applying for a job and you weren't a good worker but your references said you were, you would probably not care.

            "So you're a collectivist who now knows everything. No need for any further conversations. Just preach on. "

            There you go assuming things again. Nice way to back out and run away.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Then why did you think AIDS could be spread through a bee sting and are so clueless what peer reviewed data is? "

            Oh my goodness. There is no evidence that is true. I said in theory it could be true.

            "Peer reviewed data is from scientists who often disagree with their viewpoints, have no relation with the scientists, and needs evidence to pass the peer review process. You have no idea what you're talking about once again. "

            The idea is to build consensus.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

            Peer review equals peer consensus. In theory, it improves the reliability but it guarantees nothing in and of itself. It's a good thing, but it doesn't make YOUR case all alone.

            "Let me give you an example. If you were applying for a job and you weren't a good worker but your references said you were, you would probably not care. "

            LOL!

            "There you go assuming things again. Nice way to back out and run away."

            I'm evaluating your words. I'm not running anywhere.

          • Clark Banner

            "Oh my goodness. There is no evidence that is true. I said in theory it could be true. "

            The fact that you even speculate this shows you haven't the slightest clue about the disease. And even commonsense regarding transmission.

            "The idea is to build consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

            Peer review equals peer consensus. In theory, it improves the reliability but it guarantees nothing in and of itself. It's a good thing, but it doesn't make YOUR case all alone. "

            1) Why are you quoting Wikipedia?

            2) You didn't even read the whole article.

            "I'm evaluating your words. I'm not running anywhere."

            Yup. Just like you when you called me a psychopath. Nice evaluation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The fact that you even speculate this shows you haven't the slightest clue about the disease. And even commonsense regarding transmission. "

            You still don't get it. I made that up as a throwaway theory because we don't know where patient zero was infected. It was probably anal sex as opposed to something implausible like a bee sting.

            You're very dense.

            "1) Why are you quoting Wikipedia? "

            Because it's a great starting point with lots of references. Can you improve on those sources of that particular article? You do know how wikipedia works, right?

            "2) You didn't even read the whole article. "

            You're a prophet too. Now I see how your feelings lead you to such confidence.

            "Yup. Just like you when you called me a psychopath. Nice evaluation."

            We have consensus on that subject.

          • Clark Banner

            "You still don't get it. I made that up as a throwaway theory because we don't know where patient zero was infected. It was probably anal sex as opposed to something implausible like a bee sting."

            Please don't backtrack and act like now you don't think a beesting was implausible. Look back to how AIDS formed before Patient Zero. It was around for decades before he brought it all over the world.

            "You're very dense."

            I'm not the one thinks it's possible to get AIDS through a bee sting and it can't be spread through breast milk and semen.

            "Because it's a great starting point with lots of references. Can you improve on those sources of that particular article? You do know how wikipedia works, right? "

            Read up on the sources and not the wikipedia article. Any high school teacher will tell you this.

            "
            You're a prophet too. Now I see how your feelings lead you to such confidence"

            Once again you deflect and you show your utter disdain of reading.

            "We have consensus on that subject."

            Wow!!! Your jokes totally prove you know what you're talking about! How many peer reviewed articles have you read again? What is a scientific consensus again?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Read up on the sources and not the wikipedia article. Any high school teacher will tell you this. "

            Wow you are really stupid. That's my entire point.

            "What is a scientific consensus again?"

            Keep reading and some day you might get it.

          • Clark Banner

            "Wow you are really stupid. That's my entire point."

            Yes. I'm the stupid one for relying on a page that can be edited at will.

            "Keep reading and some day you might get it."
            ;)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yes. I'm the stupid one for relying on a page that can be edited at will. "

            Right. Follow the sources and caveat emptor. That's how we roll in the adult world. In no way did I rely on the publisher as the authority. You're confusion makes you look stupid, Maybe you are that stupid.

          • Clark Banner

            Oh what's that? No defense and just ad hominems. You shouldn't have.

          • Clark Banner

            Lol now he's backtracking like he doesn't believe wikipedia is a legitamate source. I love you science-challenged conservatives.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Lol now he's backtracking like he doesn't believe wikipedia is a legitamate source. I love you science-challenged conservatives."

            Troll. I'm happy to let anyone read and decide who to take seriously.

            I don't take back anything I said to you. Period.

          • Clark Banner

            Thank you. Now if you don't mind this psychopath has to prepare for HIV infected bee stings.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            OK troll. Do whatever you want.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Please don't backtrack and act like now you don't think a beesting was implausible. Look back to how AIDS formed before Patient Zero. It was around for decades before he brought it all over the world. "

            >"You're very dense."

            "I'm not the one thinks it's possible to get AIDS through a bee sting and it can't be spread through breast milk and semen."

            Quote me in context loser. You're still very dense. Actually, there's now evidence that you are a liar. Nobody can be this dense.

          • Clark Banner

            Yup I'm the liar. Cause you know… quoting wikipedia make me honest and a scholar.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yup I'm the liar. Cause you know… quoting wikipedia make me honest and a scholar."

            You're a lying troll. I'm happy to defend myself against things I actually say and do. At this point anyone can see that you've morphed in to a troll, taking extreme positions and getting all emotional about some beliefs you claim are purely based on incorruptible science.

            You're a troll now even if that was not your intent from the start. If you want to have a serious discussion, your future comments will reveal this…or not. I'm guessing not.

            Wikipedia is not an authority. It's a web site that publishes articles. The article cited it's sources.

            Keep it up troll.

          • Clark Banner

            Yes, that's why you quoted it as an authority. Yes, I am a troll. But only after you called me a psychopath, dense, a leftist, and stupid. Now I'm also a troll.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yes, that's why you quoted it as an authority."

            That is seriously your position? Really?

            You really are a waste of my time. I can't believe I took you seriously.

          • Clark Banner

            Hey the pleasure is all mine. How can you not take seriously someone who calls you stupid, troll and thinks HIV can be spread through bee stings.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yes, I am a troll."

            We have more consensus.

          • Clark Banner

            But is it scientific?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "But is it scientific?"

            0%

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Richard Dawkins doesn't even claim that there is no God. From 1 being complete and utter faith that there is God to 7 being that there is no God, he says he is a 6.9 because the evidence against God is overwhelming but there is still a little room for doubt. I feel the same about climate change."

            You *feel* the same. Exactly.

            "I'm a 6.9 because the data overwhelmingly falls behind that hypothesis."

            Data you can't show, unless we use data as a synonym for "claim" while pretending we're dealing with objective facts that are beyond dispute to support a theory that is 69/70 resolved. You can't even state coherently what that theory is, other than the mantra, "climate change is a fact."

            I already agreed that climate is dynamic. Now tell me why I should let a bunch of leftist whores run even more of our lives because of this amazing discovery already known since the dawn of man?

            Dawkins is no genius. He's just another personality cult.

          • wilbert

            About Skeptical Science

            This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler.

          • Clark Banner

            Still waiting for you to disprove the data.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Still waiting for you to disprove the data."

            What data?

          • Clark Banner

            Peer Reviewed Data silly. But hey you think AIDS is just a blood-born disease. I don't think facts are important to someone like you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Peer Reviewed Data silly."

            Google this: theory of climate changed proved

            "I don't think facts are important to someone like you."

            That's because you don't actually know what facts are.

            fact
            /fakt/
            Noun
            A thing that is indisputably the case.
            Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article

          • SkyHunter

            "Nobody cares about melting snow/ice in the Arctic"???
            The loss of the sea ice is altering world weather patterns. I think there are many who care about it.
            And who are you to speak for everyone?

          • wilbert

            As usual backward.. it is normal weather patterns that alters Ice, Snow, cold, warm ..etc.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "And who are you to speak for everyone?"

            What are you talking about?

    • JCS

      Holocaust Deniers say an event that has mountains of historical evidence to support it never happened. Global warming skeptics are skeptical about an event that has not yet happened. No comparison at all.

      • Clark Banner

        Although I agree there is no comparison as Holocaust Denial is in its own category, Global Warming is happening as we speak.

        • Mary Sue

          Temperature changes are a fact of life. They have been going on since before there were Humans, according to Science. The Medieval Warm Period had WARMER temperatures than we even have NOW, and there was no disaster!

          • Loyal Achates

            Sorry but no…average temperatures during the MWP were about half a degree F cooler than the mean from 1960-1990.

          • Mary Sue

            whose messed up data were you relying on? It's not warm enough to grow grapes in Newfieland now, but it was back during the Medieval Warm period!

          • wilbert

            they get the DATA from a guys who knows how to Cook DATA … John Cook a Cartoonist from Australia who took a few Physics courses and Founder of a smear site called "Skeptical Science"

          • Clark Banner

            Yup the compilation of peer reviewed data is a smearing propaganda. How could I not have seen this?!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yup the compilation of peer reviewed data is a smearing propaganda. How could I not have seen this?!"

            Leftist indoctrination.

          • Clark Banner

            Mathematical law and data tested over and over again is leftist indoctrination! Wow you're so smart!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Mathematical law and data tested over and over again is leftist indoctrination! Wow you're so smart!"

            You thinking that you're dealing with "Mathematical law and data tested over and over again" is the result of your leftist indoctrination. If you limited yourself to that. you wouldn't be running your mouth off the way you are. Your own mouth is evidence of your leftist indoctrination.

          • Clark Banner

            Yup Mathematics and Laboratory Testing where results are duplicated are leftist indoctrination!

            Wow, thanks for showing what the media says about conservatives being antiscience is completely not true at all. I guess we should abandon what we know about gravity, energy, and medicine even though they're fieldtested and vetted through fundamentally similar scientific analytical processes. After all, it's leftist indoctrination!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yup Mathematics and Laboratory Testing where results are duplicated are leftist indoctrination! "

            You again show very poor reading comprehension. That's generally not the source of the problem. The thesis and analysis are polluted by leftist indoctrination. That is why you can't actually point to any coherent theory that is supported by reasoned analysis and empirical data. Anyone can produce empirical data, but that doesn't mean it supports the thesis. If science didn't require judgment and thought, it would be assigned entirely to computers.

            It's a series of big nutshell games if that helps you understand.

          • Clark Banner

            Yes worldwide it is leftist indoctrination. Even among conservatives in other countries! http://www.salon.com/2009/09/25/global_warming_co

            The coherant theory is that man is causing climate change. Simple.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The coherant theory is that man is causing climate change."

            How much change over what period of time? Did "climate change" happen before this time? What caused that?

            If that's all climate change is, the fact that we've noticed changes, how does that justify all of the "climate" fascism?

            As I've said many times; we know climate changes. What's with the hysteria, exaggeration and lies?

          • Clark Banner

            Once again if you cared to study this at all and not superficially you wouldn't even be asking these questions as you would already know the answers.

            Climate change is occurring because human beings started burning more and more fossil fuels since the industrial age. With the advent of vehicles this became worse.

            There is no hysteria, exaggeration and lies except from conservatives.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Once again if you cared to study this at all and not superficially you wouldn't even be asking these questions as you would already know the answers. "

            My questions to you prove nothing about my ignorance or knowledge. I'm challenging you with questions. That's all it means.

            "There is no hysteria, exaggeration and lies except from conservatives."

            That's funny. There's plenty of hysteria to go around. And leftists don't know how to do anything but express their feelings. How can they do that without lying very frequently if not all the time as they plan to build Utopia? You don't think they have a 'vision" for Utopia that includes the perfect energy policy? They have to be dead sure about building the perfect world and they don't show much hesitation or admission of uncertainty. That makes them liars.

            It also makes you a leftist dupe if you defend them as the pure ones. Hence, you're indoctrinated.

          • Clark Banner

            Forgive me for being indoctrinated and not believing AIDS can be spread through a bee sting.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Forgive me for being indoctrinated and not believing AIDS can be spread through a bee sting."

            There are many like you with poor reading comprehension who are so excited to miss what is actually written.

            The point is that I haven't heard any theories about how patient zero got infected. My guess is more gay anal sex that simply wasn't documented. In theory it could be anything, like a bee sting but it was probably, I say again, more anal sex.

            I won't always have time to spell out every trivial point I make for the those who can't read with sufficient comprehension. You sure are indoctrinated to put words in the mouths of people you argue with. Nobody can question that unless they read as poorly as you do.

          • Clark Banner

            "The point is that I haven't heard any theories about how patient zero got infected. My guess is more gay anal sex that simply wasn't documented. In theory it could be anything, like a bee sting but it was probably, I say again, more anal sex. "

            What you didn't bother to wikapedia it?!

            "I won't always have time to spell out every trivial point I make for the those who can't read with sufficient comprehension. You sure are indoctrinated to put words in the mouths of people you argue with. Nobody can question that unless they read as poorly as you do. "

            Yup. It must be because I got a bee sting from AIDS.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yup. It must be because I got a bee sting from AIDS."

            Have it your way. You got AIDS from a bee sting and you throw up a huge smokescreen because you can't show specific data that supports your declarations. It took me how long to get a simple statement of your theory?

            All we can do here is judge you by your own words.

          • Clark Banner

            When you're too lazy to read peer reviewed journals and use google that makes YOU lazy not me. For starters look up journals animal migration patterns & stalagmite data and their correlation with warming.

            I'm not going to do the research for you. Get off your lazy butt and learn to use google yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'm not going to do the research for you. Get off your lazy butt and learn to use google yourself."

            The bluff is getting old (how many times today have you tried that one?) The burden of proof is on you.

            Being a good guy, I will pursue this to see what i can find to compensate for your troll-like behavior.

          • Clark Banner

            Dear good guy:

            G O O G L E . C O M

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • Clark Banner

            Silly goose. Where's the peer reviewed data supporting your conclusions that you're suppossed to look for? Do you know how to type?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "For starters look up journals animal migration patterns & stalagmite data and their correlation with warming."

            So you don't actually have a comprehensive list of data that supports your conclusions?

            How did you arrive at your conclusion with such certainty if you don't even know where the data can be found? You just wing it when called for…when making emotional appeals about how politics can't be a significant factor because your heart tells you so to the tune of 69/70 probability?

            That is some strange science.

          • Clark Banner

            Strange science? Can you tell me what that is? I mean you totally knew what a scientific consensus was.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Forgive me for being indoctrinated and not believing AIDS can be spread through a bee sting."

            I'll try not to overestimate your intelligence in future comments. I'll keep things very simple for you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Forgive me for being indoctrinated and not believing AIDS can be spread through a bee sting"

            This answer is non-responsive to the comment you attached it to.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Climate change is occurring because human beings started burning more and more fossil fuels since the industrial age. With the advent of vehicles this became worse."

            That's a theory worthy of funding. So far we don't have much in the way of definitive results though and leftist politicians feel the need to act like we do. Good thing there is "no hysteria, exaggeration and lies except from conservatives."

          • Clark Banner

            Still waiting for you to disprove the science. Or are you just going to quote me another social anthropologist?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Still waiting for you to disprove the science."

            It's like I paid you to prove how insane people like you are because I was just describing this behavior.

            This isn't the fire department and hunting down your data for you is not exactly an emergency requiring me to do anything not in accord with my own timeline.

            Try holding your breath until I get back. Or make a commitment to your own data. You keep posting URLs to summaries talking about the consensus.

            TBOPIOY

            Show the proof.

          • Clark Banner

            I'm not going to do read the peer reviewed journals for you. Learn to use google and click on the link that comes after the one that's titled "wikipedia."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'm not going to do read the peer reviewed journals for you. Learn to use google and click on the link that comes after the one that's titled "wikipedia.""

            You do know you can place your preferred search words in that I can copy to google to find YOUR data, or you can even include an URL in the comments that points to YOUR DATA.

            Amazing stuff huh?

            My laziness is interfering with you doing that? OK. That's a measure of the quality of your analytical skills.

            I must be very, very lazy.

          • Clark Banner

            Yup, I mean we can't all be proactive and use wikipedia you know.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Climate change is occurring because human beings started burning more and more fossil fuels since the industrial age. With the advent of vehicles this became worse."

            Oh no, not vehicles. I thought vehicles were around very close to the start of coal burning. No matter.

            So can we say it started in the early to mid 19th century? Is that what your precise data says? Don't you know how to express uncertainty mathematically?

            So you're uncertain about the start, but that's not critical, just an indicator of what we're dealing with.

            I also heard you say something about a change of about 1 degree Celsius or was it 0.5 over the past 50 years?

            You also stated: "There is no hysteria, exaggeration and lies except from conservatives."

            We'll see what unfolds. Keeping in mind that you didn't even provide the evidence, don't even try to put the onus on me to meet any timeline you set. You've already wasted enough time, but it will be worth it in the long run to use you as an example.

            The burden of proof is on you, yet I"m asked to do all of the work and insulted in the process. The things I do to root out liars and dupes.

          • Clark Banner

            Can you use google? Can you google global warming timeline?

            Are you that lazy?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Are you that lazy?"

            I'm too lazy to fall for your tricks. I want to disprove your theory, not every theory.

            Now where is the science that supports your conclusions? Got that?

          • Clark Banner

            GOOGLE

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • Clark Banner

            Peer reviewed sources? Nahh… Science is icky. Let's get a social anthropologist who admitted he was wrong again.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yes worldwide it is leftist indoctrination. Even among conservatives in other countries!"

            Of course conservatives can be deceived by leftists. Look at Islam and the "religion of peace" mantra. You don't understand what it means to be indoctrinated. But what else should we expect from one it the victims?

          • Clark Banner

            But you conservatives are capable of no wrong! No sir! I mean conservatives don't name drop Al Gore every time the topic of Global Warming comes up and don't try to disprove the science. No sir. You guys are above the influence.

            And AIDS. Silly rabbit… AIDS are for gays.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "But you conservatives are capable of no wrong! "

            Who said that?

            "No sir! I mean conservatives don't name drop Al Gore every time the topic of Global Warming comes up and don't try to disprove the science. No sir. You guys are above the influence. "

            So fighting personality cult liars is morally equal to being one of them? More evidence that you are indoctrinated.

            Who did Gore sell his network to? Never mind. Get me the data that supports your conclusions. The data that is so universally accepted that you'd think anyone could find it with google. The data you can't find. All I see are articles talking about how universally accepted it is. Then we have your claims that get sillier. But let's get back to the salient points.

            Where is the data you say will prove conclusively that Al Gore is not a liar?

            "And AIDS. Silly rabbit… AIDS are for gays."

            It's gay related, that's for sure. Keep up the smoke screen.

          • Clark Banner

            Yup, I'm so indoctrinated that i have to do the all the reading for the both of us.

            No smoke screen buddy. Just bee stings.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yup, I'm so indoctrinated that i have to do the all the reading for the both of us. "

            And we'll take your word for it too.

          • Clark Banner

            Really? You would take a psychopath's word? Where did you read that? Wikipedia?

          • wilbert

            Peer review DATA? Too funny..you never read one of them. All you know is what you are being told by a cartoonist. It does not matter how many peer review process a study has to be reviewed. The DATA is wrong and to keep claiming otherwise will not make it right. The Only place where the DATA match with the scary AGW scenario are Inside Computer Models …. NOT one observed DATA as ever been able to be match with the Models.

  • Ronnie Wright

    Any time there’s a big snowstorm, someone scoffs, “Global warming?! Yeah, right!” There are a few problems with that. First: It confuses a short-term, local event with the long-term trend that the planet is getting warmer. But here’s another fact that might surprise you. Even though the total amount of snow has declined in parts of the world over recent decades, there have been an increasing number of very heavy storms. That’s because a warmer climate increases evaporation, drawing moisture both from the oceans and the land. When that increased atmospheric moisture feeds into a storm, it can make the storm really, really big. The result: less snow overall as temperatures increase, but more extreme snowstorms.

    • Sky is falling

      Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

    • Mary Sue

      Except that you're wrong, it doesn't do that at all. Tracking of Hurricanes has revealed that so-called "climate change" does NOT increase the frequency OR the severity of storms.

  • RabidGreenie

    Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

  • Fruit Fly

    Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

    • pparents

      Guys, copying the previous comment makes no sense.

  • Kumbaya

    Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

  • Infovoyeur

    As one who was 100% li-be-ral by upbringing (and work in a univ. English Dept.!) but now sees one must add, to justice and equality etc., realism about limitations and also of dangers in the human world (a conservative strength), so "I'm on your side here" BUT I am still trying to comprehend, why the Conservative side denies Global Warming. A blip in the view of at least one person I really admire (an American blogging from Scandanavia…)

    Is it fear of change? Anti government etc. manipulation? Conspiracy mania (not conspiracy realism!)?…

    I read that 98% of specialist scientists agreed that global warming is increasing significantly. Some say 25% sun activity, 75% anthropocentric. Impressive evidence from too many quarters…

    I SINCERELY, would like to understand this blipp of myopia or self-blinding, in an arena (the conservative) which seems more and more needed for survival etc. today…….

    (Of course, I do judge that "reasoning" is mainly rartionalizing an existing point of view propelled by often-unconscious Prior Pulsions….)

    • Mary Sue

      they don't deny "Global warming" they deny the fraud that is "Anthropogenic Climate Change".

  • create2030

    Climate change means more extremes – not just warm weather. More extreme snowstorms are part of our new reality – wake up. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL0QF

    • Mary Sue

      If it was getting warmer, there should be no snowstorms at all because it would be TOO WARM FOR SNOW!

      • create2030

        Any climatologist will be able to explain to you that warmer overall temperatures mean more liquid is held in the upper levels of the atmosphere, which translates to heavier rain or snow when it does rain or snow. Overall there is less snow, but where it is falling, it is more likely to be in extreme amounts – blizzards, heavy downpours, etc. But, yes, there is less snow overall – ask all the farmers in the Midwest who are about to have another year of drought because of not enough snow this last winter.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    One thing the global warming, climate change scenario produces is one large painful headache.
    Chicken Little and the sky is falling, Cry Wolf, pants on fire is the true heat it generates.
    William

    • liam

      Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL

  • kevin lord

    Extreme Climate Change is here whether you like it or not. Those who have studied the problem stopped calling it global warming years ago because the term doesn't fit the data of violent climate swings we're experiencing around the globe. Some places are experiencing cooling, like parts of Antarctica. Ask the folks in South Carolina and Florida who are already seeing their yard swallowed up by the ocean whether they believe in sea level rise… much of Florida is about to return to underwater habitat and swamps.

    • Mary Sue

      "Violent climate swings" is a meaningless statement. Carbon Dioxide is not the villain here. It's the Sun.

  • UCSPanther

    QUICK! WE NEED MORE OF THIS STAT!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExEYewvs3lU

  • UCSPanther

    QUICK! WE NEED MORE OF THIS STAT!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExEYewvs3lU

  • UCSPanther

    QUICK! WE NEED MORE OF THIS STAT!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExEYewvs3lU

  • http://twitter.com/46nd2 @46nd2

    Let me guess you think by saying this nonsense you'll get to sit on one of the Koch Brothers knees one Christmas eve? Rather than thinking up insulting names for people who are fighting for the planet try and understand what scientists are warning us about: I mean you would have to be an idiot to believe a lawyer over a scientist on matters of SCIENCE!

    • nightspore

      What will you greenies say after you've killed off dozens of raptor species as well as mammals indigenous to Indonesia (including the orangutang) with your ridiculous green energy schemes? That "we destroyed the biosphere in order to save it"?

    • JoJoJams

      A warmer planet and more CO2 in the atmosphere…..hmmm….Sounds like an idyllic paradise for plant life. In short…..increased crops for humanity. I'll take a warmer earth over a colder earth any day. So what if some coastal regions get flooded? They've been doing that since the dawn of this earth! So what if local ecosystems "change"? Plant and animal life will adapt – as it has for millenia. Why are the alarmists so afraid of change? That's the rub….the alarmists have all these dire consequences, when the reality is that a warmer earth is BETTER for plant life, and humanity, than a colder planet.

      • http://twitter.com/46nd2 @46nd2

        That's an amazing theory, have you contacted the Nasa scientist who has dedicated his life to stop the pipeline? Or how about David Suzuki who heads the Suzuki Foundation which is a group of scientists? Oh ya there's also all the scientists that aren't muzzled by our governments, many can be found at Ted Talks. The largest group of scientists are the ones under pressure(legal or otherwise) to stay silent, but many of them are choosing to break their silence and give up their freedom, because it doesn't just get a little hotter, it ends. You don't really think that scientists didn't consider the fact the weather change might be beneficial but the Oil guys and billionaires did right?

        Koch Brothers Driving Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada to Cut Out Venezuelan Oil  http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_co

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "You don't really think that scientists didn't consider the fact the weather change might be beneficial but the Oil guys and billionaires did right?"

          There are reasons to be skeptical of anyone who wants to influence policy. Leftists think their side is pure and beyond question. We don't.

          • http://twitter.com/46nd2 @46nd2

            Personally I don't consider myself left or right. I agree with what you say about policy which is my exact position: Scientists job is to discover facts but they are being prevented from doing so and when they do know actual data they are under legal restrictions to reveal it to the public? What could be a more blatant attempt at influencing policy then that?

            To me it's very simple, let the scientists do their job and reveal the facts to the public and industry and environmentalists alike. Then and only then can we make the best decision on how to proceed with energy.

  • Elaia

    Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL0Q3

  • Olly

    Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL0Q7

  • http://twitter.com/iioannoulbs @iioannoulbs

    Global warming means there's less snow overall. But it could also bring more extreme snowstorms. http://clmtr.lt/cb/pIL0Ix

  • nightspore

    Since this discussion has turned to ships and ceiling wax and hockey sticks and things, it's worth pointing out that the original hockey stick – with its dramatically accelerating temperature curve – appeared in 1999 (so the curve goes thru 1998). Since then global temperatures have shown no trend at all (i.e. the trend is flat over the last 16 years). But, oddly, this doesn't seem to faze the warmists. It's as if the rising curve exists in some sort of Eternal Present – forever available to support one's talking points.

  • Clark Banner

    It's also breast milk related, vaginal sex related, oral sex related, needle related, birth related, and yes, anal sex related.

    I googled it. Which link do you want me to click on? The first one was one in favor of Anthropological Climate Change.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "I googled it. Which link do you want me to click on? The first one was one in favor of Anthropological Climate Change."

      You're telling me that it's so easy to find the coherent theory of climate change and it's not there at all. Of course articles preaching consensus view will be prominent, but not as prominent as you had hoped I suppose.

      • Clark Banner

        I'm assumed you wanted me to click on a particular article but I guess not.

        Are you that lazy where you want me to do a google search on whether it is proven or not for you?
        http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final….
        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.f

        The worldwide consensus and evidence are overwhelming for the existance of manmade climate change

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I'm assumed you wanted me to click on a particular article but I guess not."

          You're missing the point. There is no real consensus scientifically. It's political consensus, not scientific. YOU need to read and think a little before you make assumptions.

          "Are you that lazy where you want me to do a google search on whether it is proven or not for you?"

          I'm too lazy to find out what you think the definitive theory is for "climate change?"

          Think a bit more please.

          "http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final…. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.f

          Finally! Now we're getting somewhere. Now. Is that the best that you have? Because when I zero in, I don't want excuses after I make my point. Is that your best case, the one that leads you to conclude that odds are 69 to 70 that "climate change caused by man is a fact?"

          Or how about this?

          “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”

          Can we focus on that statement?

          • Clark Banner

            "You're missing the point. There is no real consensus scientifically. It's political consensus, not scientific. YOU need to read and think a little before you make assumptions."

            You have no idea what a scientific consensus is.

            The link I provided is one of many that you could google search if you wanted to. Focus on whatever you want.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You have no idea what a scientific consensus is."

            I do, but you have no idea what it isn't.

            "The link I provided…"

            I will follow that and we'll see where it leads.

            "…is one of many that you could google search if you wanted to. Focus on whatever you want."

            I want to focus on the data you say gives you a certainty of 69/70 that "man induced climate change is a fact."

          • Clark Banner

            "I do, but you have no idea what it isn't."

            Is all you do is deflecting? Evidence on the basis of body of evidence and experimentation determines this consensus. Despite politics of different regions somehow the entire world has come to this consensus. Funny how you think it's a politcal conspiracy.

            "I want to focus on the data you say gives you a certainty of 69/70 that "man induced climate change is a fact."

            Go ahead.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Is all you do is deflecting? Evidence on the basis of body of evidence and experimentation determines this consensus."

            That's the hope and the ideal. Denying political influence is naive. That's being very generous to you.

            "Go ahead."

            I'll continue to do that as I get you to commit to your position more explicitly. We've got a good start here, but don't expect real-time results. I need to request the full article your URL depends on.

            Here is someone who disagrees already. He must e a lunatic conservative.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Peiser

            Involvement in the climate-change debate
            During a debate at the Oxford Union in 2005, he stated, "The lack of a balanced approach to the issue of global warming has led to an extremely one-sided and alarmist perception of risk…. Climate alarmists habitually ignore the potential economic and health benefits of warming temperatures. While magnifying the probable risks to health and mortality as a result of warmer temperatures, many underrate or simply discount the possible heath benefits of moderate warming."[8]

            In an interview in Local Transport Today in 2006, Peiser argued that environmental concerns in general and concern about global warming in particular had reached a level of "near hysteria" and was "poisonous for rational policy making".[9]

            In 2009, in response to a prediction by James E. Hansen from NASA that sea levels could rise by 60 cm, he said, "The predictions come in thick and fast, but we take them all with a pinch of salt. We look out of the window and it's very cold, it doesn't seem to be warming."[10]

            [edit]Objections to Oreskes essay
            In 2004, a paper was published in the journal Science by Naomi Oreskes titled Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.[11] It researched the hypothesis that legitimate dissenting opinions on anthropogenic climate change might be downplayed in scientific papers and concluded that 75% of the examined abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, none directly dissenting from it. The essay received a great deal of media attention from around the world and has been cited by many prominent persons including as Al Gore in the movie An Inconvenient Truth, the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the UK Government's chief scientific adviser.

            Peiser identified an error in this paper in that keywords used in the ISI database search were in fact "global climate change" and not "climate change" as originally stated, which resulted in a correction being published by Science.[11]

            Noticing that the original research had limited itself to articles in peer-reviewed publications, Peiser then performed a similar survey that included non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed, publications and wrote a letter to Science claiming that only 29% of such papers agreed with the consensus viewpoint, 3% explicitly disagreeing. Science chose not to publish Peiser's letter saying that the basic contents of his letter were not novel enough to be published, as they were "widely dispersed on the internet."[12][13]

            In an article in The Daily Telegraph, Peiser claimed that leading scientific journals were 'censoring debate on global warming' and that Science "has a duty to publish [his research]".[12]

            One of his main points of criticism is that the vast majority of the abstracts referred to in the study do not mention anthropogenic climate change, and only 13 of the 928 abstracts explicitly endorse what Oreskes called the "consensus view".[14] Peiser later admitted that it was a mistake to include one of the papers in his survey and said that his main criticism of Oreskes's essay its "claim of a unanimous consensus on APG [anthropogenic global warming (as opposed to a majority consensus) is tenuous" and that it still was valid.[15]

            In a 2006, letter to Australia's Media Watch, Peiser explained that he had retracted 97% of his original critique and elaborated on some of his comments: "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."[16][17]

            If you don't like "wikipedia," challenge the sources that the author uses, not the publisher.

          • Clark Banner

            "That's the hope and the ideal. Denying political influence is naive. That's being very generous to you. "

            No one's denying politcal influence but when scientists from all over the world, with different beliefs, from different institutions, with different data sets that correlate, all have findings that can be duplicated in a lab setting for find basis in mathematical law…. your argument is moot.

            Wow you give me a social anthropologist as proof! So smart! This does wonders for you disproving the science!

            Everything that you posted was not science

            Regarding the consensus, he's wrong again. This paper specifically denotes everything he is saying. Not that you'll read it. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/

          • Clark Banner
          • Clark Banner

            I apologize. I keep linking you to the wrong paper. This is the right paper where he admits he is wrong. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "This is the right paper where he admits he is wrong."

            He walked it back. I know and I included that when I quoted from the article originally. He still makes the same point that I am trying to make to you today.

          • Clark Banner

            Lol and he says the consensus is from perfect. Based on what? His assertions that were just proved wrong?

          • Clark Banner

            * is far from

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yes, I am a troll. But only after you called me a psychopath, dense, a leftist, and stupid. Now I'm also a troll."

            Is this dialog or more trawling?

            Look, you don't do well in cooperative dialog. I tried a few different approaches with you and now you've agreed that you are a troll. So show the data that supports your scientific conclusions or you lose the argument.

          • Clark Banner

            This is an arguement? Really you being too lazy to use google is an arguement?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "This is an arguement? Really you being too lazy to use google is an arguement?"

            That's your argument, not mine.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Wow you give me a social anthropologist as proof! So smart! This does wonders for you disproving the science! "

            The burden of proof is not on me. He's expressing the concerns many people have with consensus being driven by political factors as much if not more than the underlying science.

            I'm sure most of the truly scientific data itself is fine. It's the analysis I question. I use both, and I never forget to distinguish between them.

            But you missed that point because you're too upset that someone would question your dogmas. You're not a teacher, you're a thug. You have no reason to get angry.

            Some times I attack people who argue for appeasing our enemies. I think that is worth getting angry over. Getting angry over having people question scientific analysis that is obviously very heavily politicized makes you look unbalanced, to be polite.

          • Clark Banner

            "The burden of proof is not on me. He's expressing the concerns many people have with consensus being driven by political factors as much if not more than the underlying science. "

            Annd he himself admitted he was wrong.

            "
            I'm sure most of the truly scientific data itself is fine. It's the analysis I question. I use both, and I never forget to distinguish between them."

            Of course you would. I mean you don't even bother to read it.

            "But you missed that point because you're too upset that someone would question your dogmas. You're not a teacher, you're a thug. You have no reason to get angry. "

            So now I'm a psychopath, a leftist, stupid, a troll and a thug. Thanks!

            "Some times I attack people who argue for appeasing our enemies. I think that is worth getting angry over. Getting angry over having people question scientific analysis that is obviously very heavily politicized makes you look unbalanced, to be polite. "

            Really? You're being polite? I guess there's a first time for everything.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So now I'm a psychopath, a leftist, stupid, a troll and a thug. Thanks! "

            You're welcome. Not everyone is happy to learn.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "No one's denying politcal influence but…"

            Yeah, but…

            "…when scientists from all over the world, with different beliefs, from different institutions, with different data sets that correlate, all have findings that can be duplicated in a lab setting for find basis in mathematical law…. your argument is moot. "

            It would be if the question was purely mathematical. It's not. I'm not clear if you're bluffing, too excited to realize what you're reading or saying…not sure who you are. I will say that you're not helping your stated cause.

          • Clark Banner

            What can I say, I'm human and I make gramatical mistakes. I'm not above the influence like the conservative party is.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "What can I say, I'm human and I make gramatical mistakes. "

            Typical leftist, creating your own dialog.

            You're an emotional troll trying to make arguments based on science without actually providing the scientific data you crow about.

            And anyone can see how much time you put in to your non-responsive comments. you morphed in to a troll as soon as you sensed the trap you fell in to.

            It would be very easy for me to return to the comment stream and just write a summary of the salient points from our dialog.

            I'm not making any promises to you, but you're not doing yourself or your professed cause any favors.

            I'd go to sleep and think about your attitude. Basically you wasted a lot of time because you know you can't easily if at all provide data that supports your claims.

            Anyone can see that, even you.

          • Clark Banner

            So now I'm a leftist again. Cool!

            Yup I can support anything. Man I wish there was something like google that could do that for me.

          • Clark Banner

            *can't

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'm not above the influence like the conservative party is."

            No party or politician is above corrupting influences. The brave few that fight it are in the Republican Party, but I can only think of a handful.

          • Clark Banner

            Objective facts like that sure matter!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Objective facts like that sure matter!"

            You don't have a lot of objective facts in this discussion.

            Very little of our dialog matters. It's been a waste of time so far.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Is all you do is deflecting? "

            That's very funny from the one who calls me lazy for not going out and finding your unicorn for you, and then transforms in to a troll.

            Do yourself a favor and read again what you're commenting on after you've slept enough.

            >"I want to focus on the data you say gives you a certainty of 69/70 that "man induced climate change is a fact."

            "Go ahead."

            As if you already provided it.

          • Clark Banner

            I can't prove it when you're too lazy to use google.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I can't prove it when you're too lazy to use google."

            Then prove to everyone else how lazy I am by providing the google URL you say leads to this unicorn of yours.

            I'm actually starting to pity you.

            Watch this:
            https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+farce&amp

            OK? Do something like that with your data. K?

          • Clark Banner

            Is that peer reviewed conclusions? Nah… you're too busy to search that out.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Is that peer reviewed conclusions? Nah… you're too busy to search that out."

            I didn't reference any claims that require peer reviews. The burden of proof is on you, who did. You failed.

            Anyone can see that your bluff has run out of steam.