Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 48,582
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38923 Sep 6, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
New Zealand snow storm.
September 4, 2013:
HUNDREDS of skiers are stuck on New Zealand's Mt Hutt after freak weather forced its closure.
A combination of drifting snow and poor visibility has been blamed. While ski area management were aware of an approaching front and poor forecast, the situation deteriorated quickly, Mt Hutt ski area manager James McKenzie said.
There are 316 people trapped on the mountain.
"We made a decision to close the mountain at 11.30 this morning and a number of people made it safely down the road," he said.
"However at midday a combination of new snow blowing around everywhere and wind gusts of up to 45km/h, especially around the Saddles, meant visibility along the upper section of the access road deteriorated to the extent we closed the road completely.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/holiday-ideas/h...
Mt. Hutt is on the South Island. My friend lives on the north in Auckland. She said its as cold as anytime she remembers. The north island is generally pretty mild year round.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38924 Sep 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Sounds like you don't like a scientist or a VP being human..
Why don't you learn from what you are posting? Too DENSE!
Not much to learn from your posts... other than snark and poor grammar.

LOL

btw, is "dense" your new word-of-the-day? Tired of "whitewasher" (which you never used correctly, btw)

LOL x2
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38925 Sep 6, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Why watch?
First, he's introduced as getting his Phd in medicine... not climate.
Then he starts off by saying that he isn't an atmospheric scientist.
So according to your warmist standards, his opinion means squat.
I do love tossing your standards of "science" right back in your face.
LOL
What! You are clueless. Medicine? NOT!

What he's is great:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Alley

What do you mean by "standards" of science? I threw it back in your face!
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38926 Sep 6, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it was Muller's paper that had errors. Even the warmists panned his paper that got declined to be published in Journal of Geophysical Research.
False.
http://tinyurl.com/lqnvddp

Elizabeth Muller, Richard Muller’s daughter and executive director of the BEST study, reported earlier on the Andrew Revkin’s New York Times blog Dot Earth that the team is working through the review process:

“All of the articles have been submitted to journals, and we have received substantial journal peer reviews. None of the reviews have indicated any mistakes in the papers; they have instead been primarily suggestions for additions, further citations of the literature. One review had no complaints about the content of the paper, but suggested delaying the publication until the long background paper, describing our methods in detail, was actually published.”

Responding to an inquiry from Nature, Elizabeth Muller confirmed that McKitrick reviewed the urban heat island paper and that the paper was technically rejected the first time around.“McKitrick did indeed suggest useful changes to the paper, many of which we made, but our basic results do not depend on these issues,” she wrote.“JGR has a method of technically rejecting a journal while encouraging the authors to revise the paper and re-submit. Apparently they do this to give the authors more time to make changes (otherwise, authors have only about a month to make revisions).” Muller declined to release information about the timing of the peer review process.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38927 Sep 6, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Not much to learn from your posts... other than snark and poor grammar.
LOL
btw, is "dense" your new word-of-the-day? Tired of "whitewasher" (which you never used correctly, btw)
LOL x2
Are you representing the other science denier?

The word "dense" has history with that poster. Your grammar and language errors have been documented. Have you not read them?

Oh you are whitewashing denialism.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38928 Sep 6, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
http://tinyurl.com/lqnvddp
Elizabeth Muller, Richard Muller’s daughter and executive director of the BEST study, reported earlier on the Andrew Revkin’s New York Times blog Dot Earth that the team is working through the review process:
“All of the articles have been submitted to journals, and we have received substantial journal peer reviews. None of the reviews have indicated any mistakes in the papers; they have instead been primarily suggestions for additions, further citations of the literature. One review had no complaints about the content of the paper, but suggested delaying the publication until the long background paper, describing our methods in detail, was actually published.”
Responding to an inquiry from Nature, Elizabeth Muller confirmed that McKitrick reviewed the urban heat island paper and that the paper was technically rejected the first time around.“McKitrick did indeed suggest useful changes to the paper, many of which we made, but our basic results do not depend on these issues,” she wrote.“JGR has a method of technically rejecting a journal while encouraging the authors to revise the paper and re-submit. Apparently they do this to give the authors more time to make changes (otherwise, authors have only about a month to make revisions).” Muller declined to release information about the timing of the peer review process.
Standard fare!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38929 Sep 6, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Why watch?
First, he's introduced as getting his Phd in medicine... not climate.
Then he starts off by saying that he isn't an atmospheric scientist.
So according to your warmist standards, his opinion means squat.
I do love tossing your standards of "science" right back in your face.
LOL
The presentation at AGU is: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's ..."

You are missing so much by not watching it; of course, that assumes a certain comprehension level, which is doubtful with you.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38930 Sep 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are so DENSE.
What happened is exactly how science journals operate. Do I have to teach you how to publish or that it is considered an honor to publish in a new journal?
Alas, you are totally clueless. Watch this to learn a little:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =RffPSrRpq_gXX
So every major journal refused to publish THE PAPER that would prove global warming, why?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38931 Sep 6, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
http://tinyurl.com/lqnvddp
Elizabeth Muller, Richard Muller’s daughter and executive director of the BEST study, reported earlier on the Andrew Revkin’s New York Times blog Dot Earth that the team is working through the review process:
“All of the articles have been submitted to journals, and we have received substantial journal peer reviews. None of the reviews have indicated any mistakes in the papers; they have instead been primarily suggestions for additions, further citations of the literature. One review had no complaints about the content of the paper, but suggested delaying the publication until the long background paper, describing our methods in detail, was actually published.”
Responding to an inquiry from Nature, Elizabeth Muller confirmed that McKitrick reviewed the urban heat island paper and that the paper was technically rejected the first time around.“McKitrick did indeed suggest useful changes to the paper, many of which we made, but our basic results do not depend on these issues,” she wrote.“JGR has a method of technically rejecting a journal while encouraging the authors to revise the paper and re-submit. Apparently they do this to give the authors more time to make changes (otherwise, authors have only about a month to make revisions).” Muller declined to release information about the timing of the peer review process.
False, she's lying.

"On March 8 2012 I was asked by JGR to review a revised version of the Wickham et al. paper. I submitted my review at the end of March. The authors had made very few changes and had not addressed any of the methodological problems, so I recommended the paper not be published. I do not know what the journal's decision was, but it is 4 months later and I can find no evidence on the BEST website that this or any other BEST project paper has been accepted for publication.[Update July 30: JGR told me "This paper was REJECTED and the editor recommended that the author resubmit it as a new paper."]

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/temperature-data...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38932 Sep 6, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
So every major journal refused to publish THE PAPER that would prove global warming, why?
Is that a fact? NO.

Still.. we are not going to teach you how or what to publish in a science journal.

However, the standard fare applies!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38933 Sep 6, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
False, she's lying.
"On March 8 2012 I was asked by JGR to review a revised version of the Wickham et al. paper. I submitted my review at the end of March. The authors had made very few changes and had not addressed any of the methodological problems, so I recommended the paper not be published. I do not know what the journal's decision was, but it is 4 months later and I can find no evidence on the BEST website that this or any other BEST project paper has been accepted for publication.[Update July 30: JGR told me "This paper was REJECTED and the editor recommended that the author resubmit it as a new paper."]
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/temperature-data...
Whatever! You <not you per se> win some, you lose some.

Standard fare!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38934 Sep 6, 2013
Dear readers,

Isn't it pathetic that any science denier can say anything and expect respose.

Imagine that you are a scientist for a moment. When will you do science if you are busy sueing these liars? Of course, these deniers aim at stopping any science progress, just like the Church, Hitler, etc. have done in the past.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38935 Sep 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What! You are clueless. Medicine? NOT!
What he's is great:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Alley
What do you mean by "standards" of science? I threw it back in your face!
My oh my what a short memory you have.

I can't tell you how many times I've see rants from the warmists that only the "science" of climate scientists is worth discussing.

But glad to see you're opening up your narrow perspective.

LOL
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38936 Sep 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Are you representing the other science denier?
The word "dense" has history with that poster. Your grammar and language errors have been documented. Have you not read them?
Oh you are whitewashing denialism.
Representing a science denier?

Wow... there's a loaded question-- one that presupposes evidence not in fact. Do run along... get some Legos and pretend your useful.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38937 Sep 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>The presentation at AGU is: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's ..."
You are missing so much by not watching it; of course, that assumes a certain comprehension level, which is doubtful with you.
Is he saying anything different that the warmists on this thread, or just a new twist on the old theme?

Ya' know... if your mommy can't afford Legos, Brix Blox will work too. She can find them cheap in second hand stores.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38938 Sep 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Dear readers,
Isn't it pathetic that any science denier can say anything and expect respose.
Imagine that you are a scientist for a moment. When will you do science if you are busy sueing these liars? Of course, these deniers aim at stopping any science progress, just like the Church, Hitler, etc. have done in the past.
My, my... aren't we ratcheting up the rhetoric.

But, alas, nothing new to see here.
If you had any critical thinking skills and were capable of understanding "debate", you'd see there is much 'science' being discussed here. And given it's 'doomsday' nature, religion, and politics too.

But you can't see the forest through the trees, and anyone who disagree with you gets labeled a heretic.

That's not very "scientific" of you, is it?

I've got to ask... what did you ask you mommy to get you when you turn 17?

Run along... adults are talking here.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38939 Sep 6, 2013
Like most of the denier posts on here, they all sound like tea baggers trying to find a new cause. No wonder they were branded America's Taliban, everything is about the good ole days. That's the world they live in and don't want any change. But they would serve themselves and the planet if they just went back a little bit further and started living the lifestyle of the Amish. Then they could whine all day about the solar panels on the farm next door.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38940 Sep 6, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Like most of the denier posts on here, they all sound like tea baggers trying to find a new cause. No wonder they were branded America's Taliban, everything is about the good ole days. That's the world they live in and don't want any change. But they would serve themselves and the planet if they just went back a little bit further and started living the lifestyle of the Amish. Then they could whine all day about the solar panels on the farm next door.
Some folks run around looking for something to hate. That way, they make believe that they are doing something important. Thay have no clue but it is easy for them to be against. Have you noticed, they are never for anything.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38941 Sep 6, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Like most of the denier posts on here, they all sound like tea baggers trying to find a new cause. No wonder they were branded America's Taliban, everything is about the good ole days. That's the world they live in and don't want any change. But they would serve themselves and the planet if they just went back a little bit further and started living the lifestyle of the Amish. Then they could whine all day about the solar panels on the farm next door.
You can go play with SpaceBlues.... I here he's getting some new blocks to play with.

Ever since Obama launched his "push" for global warming "information", a few folks here have lost all sense of perspective.

I laugh at your pile of sanctimonious bullshyt you proffer as argument.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38942 Sep 6, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Some folks run around looking for something to hate. That way, they make believe that they are doing something important. Thay have no clue but it is easy for them to be against. Have you noticed, they are never for anything.
Aww... and now the trifecta of the dullards.

SpaceBlues sandbox is getting kinda full, but you'll be welcome.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min American Lady 1,143,999
Aldi's is the Worst Supermarket Chain (Jun '12) 6 min Cash Out 328
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 33 min wojar 180,898
Amy Nov 26 2 hr Mister Tonka 4
EverGreen Belgrade 3 hr Bozidar Jankovic 10
last post wins! (Apr '13) 4 hr Hatti_Hollerand 392
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 4 hr Hatti_Hollerand 4,871
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 11 hr primetime justice 98,694
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:35 pm PST

ESPN 2:35PM
Cardinals' Bush: No 'fair shake' with Bears
NBC Sports 3:55 PM
Will Lions bad offense or Bears bad defense step up?
NBC Sports 4:15 PM
Washington benches RGIII, Colt McCoy to start
Bleacher Report 5:56 PM
Breaking Down Lions' Game Plan vs. Bears
Bleacher Report 7:26 PM
Bold Predictions for Colts Week 13 Matchup