SINGER: No proof man causes global wa...

SINGER: No proof man causes global warming

There are 560 comments on the Washington Times story from Dec 28, 2010, titled SINGER: No proof man causes global warming. In it, Washington Times reports that:

ASSOCIATED PRESS Delegates follow the opening of the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, Monday, Dec.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Washington Times.

First Prev
of 28
Next Last
I AM DIGITAP

Long Beach, CA

#584 Feb 4, 2011
Why are you in here CLAIMING you HAVE SOMEONE'S INFORMATION to TOUT

that HASN'T BEEN RULED to HAVE COME from a MATHEMATICAL INCOMPETENT

or FAILED DATA ANALYST like TRENBERTH who thought TWELVE YEARS of GRADUALLY TAPERING ACTIVITY and a little COOLING

was EVER ACCELERATING APOCALYPTIC HELLFIRE in the SKY

you ILLITERATE and INNUMERATE grub eating TWIT?

Why don't you have any ANSWER for why STEVEN SCHNEIDER - a TOP 'CLIMATE SPECIALIST' who WORKED for NASA at one time -

EXPLAIN how that HICK THOUGHT he had OVERTHROWN the LAWS of INSTRUMENTATION

writing a PAPER deriving TEMPERATURE from WIND SPEED --

*** TELL US HOW YOU THINK THAT WORKS, B!+CH!***

GO FIND SOMEONE who will TELL YOU HOW THEY THINK that WORKS,

HICK!

We'll WAIT HERE. We BROUGHT TOWELS in case we SNORT our COFFEE ONTO our KEYBOARDS when your LAME,
STUPID, ILLITERATE, INNUMERATE A$$ GROWS the [email protected]

and has them DROP

giving you COURAGE to answer HOW YOU THOUGHT THAT was POSSIBLE.

WHY DON'T you START EXPLAINING to ME motherf&&ER,

f&&ck the REST of these PEOPLE you explain to

ME B!+CH

How YOU THINK BACKRADIATION - a SIMPLE, SIMPLE,***GAS PHYISICS the SIMPLEST of MATTER STATES***

QUESTION:

exPLAIN to THIS INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCE how YOU THINK

B.A.C.K.R.A.D.I.A.T.I.O.N. works: and HOW it REVERSED the POLARITY of ***EITHER*** the

Gravitational OR Electromagnetic
FORCE -

EXPLAIN YOUR CHURCH'S TAKE on HOW HEAT ACTS when PHOTONIC ENERGY IS ON a GAS ATOM.

We're all going to be STUNNED at the SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS such as

MATH that's NOT MATH being MORE ACCURATE than MATH ITSELF

a PROGRAM that TELLS TEMP from WIND SPEED and PROVES ALL the WORLD'S THERMOMETERS to BE BROKEN and not ONE
SENSING and DETECTION ORGANIZATION on EARTH KNOW IT

Tell us about it you f&ng PAINT-CHIP fed GHETTO TRASH:

WE're WAITING with ABATED BREATH for your STUNNING REVELATIONS on how the FIELDS

of INSTRUMENTATION,
STATISTICS,
and G.R.A.V.I.T.Y. have ALL THREE

BEEN

SIMULTANEOUSLY

OVERTHROWN

by a bunch of FAT STUPID CRACKERS who GOT CAUGHT PLOTTING to RUIN a REPORTER'S CAREER for SAYING what THEY were PISSING and MOANING about REGRETTING,

was TRUE.

go GET GAVIN SCHMIDT or that HICK from SCEPTICAL SCIENCE or that EMBECILE TAMINO who CAN'T TELL IT WASN'T REAL MATH EITHER

beTWEEN THEM.

We're waiting with out towels ready b!+ch so the FEWEST KEYBOARDS are VICTIM to OUTBURSTS of HILARIOUS GALES of MOCKERY and SCOFFING at your

LACK of even SIMPLEST GRASP of A PROPORTIONAL-PHYSICS LAW-DRIVEN

Universe.

Go get someone who'll EXPLAIN why YOUR PEOPLE CAN'T TELL IT'S NOT MATH,

HICK.

Now.
Chuck

Southworth, WA

#585 Feb 4, 2011
I AM DIGITAP wrote:
Why are you in here CLAIMING you HAVE SOMEONE'S INFORMATION to TOUT
that HASN'T BEEN RULED to HAVE COME from a MATHEMATICAL INCOMPETENT
or FAILED DATA ANALYST like TRENBERTH who thought TWELVE YEARS of GRADUALLY TAPERING ACTIVITY and a little COOLING
was EVER ACCELERATING APOCALYPTIC HELLFIRE in the SKY
you ILLITERATE and INNUMERATE grub eating TWIT?
Why don't you have any ANSWER for why STEVEN SCHNEIDER - a TOP 'CLIMATE SPECIALIST' who WORKED for NASA at one time -
EXPLAIN how that HICK THOUGHT he had OVERTHROWN the LAWS of INSTRUMENTATION
writing a PAPER deriving TEMPERATURE from WIND SPEED --
*** TELL US HOW YOU THINK THAT WORKS, B!+CH!***
GO FIND SOMEONE who will TELL YOU HOW THEY THINK that WORKS,
HICK!
We'll WAIT HERE. We BROUGHT TOWELS in case we SNORT our COFFEE ONTO our KEYBOARDS when your LAME,
STUPID, ILLITERATE, INNUMERATE A$$ GROWS the [email protected]
and has them DROP
giving you COURAGE to answer HOW YOU THOUGHT THAT was POSSIBLE.
WHY DON'T you START EXPLAINING to ME motherf&&ER,
f&&ck the REST of these PEOPLE you explain to
ME B!+CH
How YOU THINK BACKRADIATION - a SIMPLE, SIMPLE,***GAS PHYISICS the SIMPLEST of MATTER STATES***
QUESTION:
exPLAIN to THIS INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCE how YOU THINK
B.A.C.K.R.A.D.I.A.T.I.O.N. works: and HOW it REVERSED the POLARITY of ***EITHER*** the
Gravitational OR Electromagnetic
FORCE -
EXPLAIN YOUR CHURCH'S TAKE on HOW HEAT ACTS when PHOTONIC ENERGY IS ON a GAS ATOM.
We're all going to be STUNNED at the SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS such as
MATH that's NOT MATH being MORE ACCURATE than MATH ITSELF
a PROGRAM that TELLS TEMP from WIND SPEED and PROVES ALL the WORLD'S THERMOMETERS to BE BROKEN and not ONE
SENSING and DETECTION ORGANIZATION on EARTH KNOW IT
Tell us about it you f&ng PAINT-CHIP fed GHETTO TRASH:
WE're WAITING with ABATED BREATH for your STUNNING REVELATIONS on how the FIELDS
of INSTRUMENTATION,
STATISTICS,
and G.R.A.V.I.T.Y. have ALL THREE
BEEN
SIMULTANEOUSLY
OVERTHROWN
by a bunch of FAT STUPID CRACKERS who GOT CAUGHT PLOTTING to RUIN a REPORTER'S CAREER for SAYING what THEY were PISSING and MOANING about REGRETTING,
was TRUE.
go GET GAVIN SCHMIDT or that HICK from SCEPTICAL SCIENCE or that EMBECILE TAMINO who CAN'T TELL IT WASN'T REAL MATH EITHER
beTWEEN THEM.
We're waiting with out towels ready b!+ch so the FEWEST KEYBOARDS are VICTIM to OUTBURSTS of HILARIOUS GALES of MOCKERY and SCOFFING at your
LACK of even SIMPLEST GRASP of A PROPORTIONAL-PHYSICS LAW-DRIVEN
Universe.
Go get someone who'll EXPLAIN why YOUR PEOPLE CAN'T TELL IT'S NOT MATH,
HICK.
Now.
Al Gore as a child below:

http://www.conspiracycards.com/Toys/BohemianG...

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#586 Feb 5, 2011
Anyone see are hear about this article from 1922, any comments?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#587 Feb 5, 2011
J_a_n wrote:
Anyone see are hear about this article from 1922, any comments?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask...
It has been posted here many times, but it's always good to rub in the faces of alarmists.
Here's another:
"It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
kal

Locust Grove, VA

#588 Feb 5, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>It has been posted here many times, but it's always good to rub in the faces of alarmists.
Here's another:
"It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
although I've read this before the; " also to the future intercourse" , part worries me, as I know lite song will show up

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#589 Feb 5, 2011
kal wrote:
although I've read this before the; " also to the future intercourse" , part worries me, as I know lite song will show up
Isn't that what they say about bad pennies?
Never mind, we have to take the rough wih the smooth, it's all part of life's rich tapestry.

“Facts, not fiction”

Since: Apr 07

Earth

#590 Feb 6, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>That's nothing, one of your science minded friends actually wrote this:<quoted text>
What makes him my friend?

“Facts, not fiction”

Since: Apr 07

Earth

#591 Feb 6, 2011
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to learn how to do your own research. Because considering how much they now make I not going to do it for free.
I am an active researcher...you clearly are not.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
But with just a few minutes on Google I found plenty on how the NAS membership has had issues with the NAS. Just as I had little trouble finding out about how many lobbist the NAS has and how much money the NAS has received which is a mind boggling amount.
I am sure you can point me to that evidence.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason why John Cook has to supplement his income by doing web sites and database programming is because he cannot seem to find a job in physics which is what his degree is in.
Please provide evidence that John Cook could not find a job in physics. Really, Tina, have you still not seen that I'm someone who goes after factual argumentation?
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Also the wikipedia administrator was not doing his job unless his job was to write fiction. He was editing out anything that did not agree with man made global warming and even entering false data to support it. Add on top of that the there are professors who will not accept papers that use wikipeida as a source and you have a history of bad data.
Again no factual argumentation, but rather claims. No one caught Connolley entering false data, they 'caught' him reverting edits that were poorly backed up, or downright wrong. That, of course, was not to the liking of the anti-science crowd. I also don't understand your continuous bashing of Wikipedia. The science isn't on Wikipedia, it is in the scientific literature. And it's literature I doubt you ever read.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And I think Inbtelligent Design is just as creditable as AGW/Man made global warming. And of course I do not use the lefy wing right wing bit unless the other person brings it up then only because it make the handy club to beat them with.
I never brought up "left-right"...

But it's interesting you believe just about every scientific organisation when it discredits Intelligent Design (despite a minority of scientists defending it), and then claim a political conspiracy of those same scientific organisations when they state science shows there is AGW. Consistency is apparently not your strength either.

“Facts, not fiction”

Since: Apr 07

Earth

#592 Feb 6, 2011
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And your relying on te IPCC report as a truthful source. That report has found to have so many false hoods that it now qualifies as fiction. You should try some other source that hasn't had the skeptics going over it with an extremely fine tooth comb.
Because as a source of facts the IPCC report is anything but a reliable source. They have a worse reputation than wikipedia and the CRU and that took a little doing. Go back to skepticalscience.com . At least those have a little more creditablility.
You guys are going around in circles. First claim "the IPCC does not do X or show Y", get shown wrong ("here it is, chapter x.x"), then claim the IPCC report is not a truthful source, and repeat the first claim again in the next comment. Repeat ad infinitum, and Tina Anne thinks she actually makes a coherent argument.

“Facts, not fiction”

Since: Apr 07

Earth

#593 Feb 6, 2011
J_a_n wrote:
Someone once here referenced a volcanic eruption they used the magnitude of Mount Saint Helen's or the more recent Eyjafjallajökull. I don't remeber the exact numbers, but displayed how they contributed more to global/climate alterations in 30 days than mankind has say could contribute in the last 100-500 years.
Show us just how irrelevant we really are, if we want to make changes we need to learn how to control volcanoes, earthquakes and other phenomenons of mother nature.
<quoted text>
Jan:
http://gizmodo.com/5519809/eyjafjallajokull-d...

Pinatubo, a class higher eruption than that of Mt St. Helens (it's a logarithmic scale), cause about 1-2 years of slightly cooler temperatures. Long term effect? Nil.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#594 Feb 6, 2011
Marco the atheist wrote:
What makes him my friend?
Like any human being who considers themself to be a person of reason, you should consider him a friend because you can have no enemies who live in countries classed as allies.
The only antonyms for friend, are foe, enemy, detractor or opponent and in this instance, he's none of those.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#595 Feb 6, 2011
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I am an active researcher...you clearly are not.
<quoted text>
I am sure you can point me to that evidence.
<quoted text>
Please provide evidence that John Cook could not find a job in physics. Really, Tina, have you still not seen that I'm someone who goes after factual argumentation?
<quoted text>
Again no factual argumentation, but rather claims. No one caught Connolley entering false data, they 'caught' him reverting edits that were poorly backed up, or downright wrong. That, of course, was not to the liking of the anti-science crowd. I also don't understand your continuous bashing of Wikipedia. The science isn't on Wikipedia, it is in the scientific literature. And it's literature I doubt you ever read.
<quoted text>
I never brought up "left-right"...
But it's interesting you believe just about every scientific organisation when it discredits Intelligent Design (despite a minority of scientists defending it), and then claim a political conspiracy of those same scientific organisations when they state science shows there is AGW. Consistency is apparently not your strength either.
You cannot be that active a researcher if your spending all this time on Topix and have not bothered to do the amount of research a fifth grader has done for a science project. Try going to google and giving it a chance to find the very same information for you. After all I sure you have tapped a search engine or two in your quest for information.

It is also funny how you describe that only a minority of scientist still support Intelligent Design when the exact same thing could be said for man made global warming. As for political debate I debate politics when it involves political organizations and none is more political than a lobbing group. The NAS is such a lobbing group with plenty of lobbiest working for them.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#596 Feb 6, 2011
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
You guys are going around in circles. First claim "the IPCC does not do X or show Y", get shown wrong ("here it is, chapter x.x"), then claim the IPCC report is not a truthful source, and repeat the first claim again in the next comment. Repeat ad infinitum, and Tina Anne thinks she actually makes a coherent argument.
And yet, you have not proved that it is a truthful source other than to claim it is so because the UN IPCC had said so. talk about the pot calling the kettle black. There have been plenty of examples of the IPCC having gross errors and suffering from biased reporting. So much so that they had to reorganize.

You claim to be an active researcher sodo the research yourself and provide some proof that they can be considered a reliable source. So far you appear to be more of an activist researcher. Becasue claiming the the IPCC is a relaible source by quoting IPCC sources is going to have you going in circles.
I AM DIGITAP

San Francisco, CA

#597 Feb 6, 2011
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I am an active researcher...
You're an ACTIVE LIAR because if you could READ or understand anything mathematical, YOU'D have UNDERSTOOD the DEATH KNELL to your CHURCH when CLIMATE MATH was ruled NOT MATH at ALL.

You never measured anything for money you didn't get fired for; and the only 'research' you do is for Jr. College classes in lower level politics & other soft science.

SO FAR your STUPID ASS has come here CONVINCED it's the END of the WORLD

in spite of the fact YOUR GURUS were TEACHING EACH other BULLSHIT that TURNS OUT to NOT BE MATH AT ALL: just WORTHLESS DOODLES by

A.M.A.T.E.U.R.S.

Which means ALL their papers are now TOILET PAPER.

You can't research: you're too STUPID to REALIZE the GRAVITY of JONES ADMITTING that IT HASN'T WARMED since 1995, and has actually COOLED since 2002 - that admission in the Feb 2010 B.B.C. INTERVIEW.

You're an IGNORANT, INNUMERATE HICK who has no more grasp of MATHEMATICS than PHYSICS because you ALSO bought the mythical

BACKRADIATION where GRAVITY'S POLARITY got REVERSED and HEAT no longer RISES - it SINKS in the atmosphere, screwing INTO the SOURCE of the GRAVITATIONAL FIELD the RADIATION'S in.

YOU'RE a F^NG JANITOR.

PERIOD.
If you WEREN'T you'd HAVE UNDERSTOOD "it WAS NOT EVER REAL MATH"

A.N.D.

your GURUS COULDN'T TELL: they HAD to be TOLD by the HEAD of the ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY.

You've got the ACUMEN of some ILLITERATE HIGH-SCHOOLER who took a DEBATE class.
litesong

Lake Stevens, WA

#599 Mar 17, 2016
Blast from the Past. Two toxic topix AGW denier liar whiners think they can gang up on one AGW advocate. But AGW comes to the rescue.
//////////
"lyin' brian" bluffed:
Science is a long series of mistakes and slow improvement.
///////
litesong wrote:
filthy vile pukey proud racist pig & alleged threatener denier 'brian_g stumble butt' has a long series of mistakes & no improvement. Presently, filthy vile pukey proud racist pig & alleged threatener denier 'brian_g stumble butt' has made math errors of 1 million, 1000 & 3000 TIMES, has an erroneous definition of climate, has made 4 alleged threats & finally, has demoted himself to a sub-sub-kindergarten level comprehension of his hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
/////////
toxic topix AGW denier liar whiner dirtling" duffed:
Current temperature in Seattle,-1º C, dropping to -3º C tonight, tomorrow night and the night after.
/////////
litesong wrote:
For the month of December 2010, before this bit of snow, December temperatures for Seattle averaged 3.4 degrees over normal day temperatures, & 3.8 degrees over normal low night temperatures. Yesterday, during that bit of snow, temperature was 37-38 degrees. Maybe, we'll get lucky & avoid a number of 0 to 20 degree morning temperatures, altho morning temps are predicted to dip toward the low 20's soon. Most of December's been pleasant, except for the AGW predicted extra rain we've had.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#600 Mar 18, 2016
Still no experimental test of climate change mitigation? Do you need more proof it is a hoax and manmade catastrophic climate disruption is pseudoscience?
IB DaMann

Alexandria, VA

#601 Mar 18, 2016
Marco the atheist wrote:
Really, Tina, have you still not seen that I'm someone who goes after factual argumentation?
You might very well be the guy I've been seeking.

I am an atheist and you are supposedly an atheist. Great! I really hope so,and I truly hope you can discern religion from science.

I want to discuss science using factual argumentation, and that's supposedly what you "go after." Great! I really hope so. I hope you're not one of those who relies on ad hominem, appeals to authority and attempts to shift the burden of proof.

Could you tell me what science you have reviewed and understand that convinced you that Global Warming is real?

Also, can you account for the additional energy generated by "greenhouse gas" that increases temperature?
Marco the atheist wrote:
I also don't understand your continuous bashing of Wikipedia.
You must not be a professional researcher. Wikipedia carries radical left-wing bias and curtails references to factual authoritative sources. Wikipedia deserves to be bashed at every turn. Citations of Wikipedia are to be summarily dismissed.
Marco the atheist wrote:
The science isn't on Wikipedia, it is in the scientific literature.
Now I'm worried. The only ones who use the term "The Science" are those who are devout religious worshipers of Global Warming who are referring to their unfalsifiable religious dogma. They also refer to their religious scripture as "scientific literature." I sincerely hope you have some valid responses for my questions above.
Marco the atheist wrote:
(despite a minority of scientists defending it),
Oh no! A second huge red flag has been raised. You apparently are a believer in "consensus determines science" and "reality morphs and conforms to the subjective desires of the majority."

I think I know where this will be headed. I bet you're going to tell me that "peer review" is required for science. Why am I already disappointed?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#602 Mar 18, 2016
It amuses me to witness a fool responding to posts made by passers by in 2011, maybe that's why he's disappointed.
Ö¿Ö
litesong

Lake Stevens, WA

#603 Mar 18, 2016
Brian_G wrote:
Still no experimental test of climate change mitigation? Do you need more proof it is a hoax and manmade catastrophic climate disruption is pseudoscience?
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy stupid steenkin' toxic topix AGW denier whiner liar lyin' brian" gives no proof it had science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy stupid steenkin' toxic topix AGW denier whiner liar lyin' brian" doesn't even give pseudoscience for its dismissal of AGW.
IB DaMann

Alexandria, VA

#604 Mar 18, 2016
Earthling-1 wrote:
It amuses me to witness a fool responding to posts made by passers by in 2011, maybe that's why he's disappointed.
Ö¿Ö
Maybe he'll return. Maybe he'll help you out with science. Who knows?

While I have you, what is your definition of "climate"? You offered many vague descriptions and since you INSIST that people are somehow stupid for acknowledging that "climate" is not defined anywhere in the body of science, perhaps you could tell us the official Earthling-1 definition.

Maybe if yours is good enough, science won't need another one.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 28
Next Last

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.

Copenhagen, Denmark Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Where the Best Wee-d/Meds/Hash is found in Cope... Fri Seams 1
the goddam jews are what is wrong with your cou... Jul 26 JOHNNY LENNON 1
There is no democracy in Denmark Jul 6 SEROK KURDISH 2
News Adele - offers to be surrogate' to gay people May '16 L Craig s Hush Pu... 1
Arctic: the Ecological Mercenaries Apr '16 RaymonsGagnon 2
(News) Kæmpe kunstdonation til Aarhus-museet Aros Mar '16 DanskCrisps 1
(News) Sine blev snydt af troværdigt tilbud Mar '16 DanskCrisps 1
More from around the web