Scientific error versus scientific fraud
Jeffrey K

Okotoks, Canada

#4011 Sep 16, 2008
WaltBennett wrote:
<quoted text>
Tina Anne, you seem to really want to know something. That way, you can tell people things that they don't know and might find useful. That way, you can consider yourself useful.
All worthy goals. I share some of those traits.
Why, then, do you waste that ambition on insisting that AGW is simply wrong? You have to somehow sense that it really isn't wrong, in the sense that we know man has caused CO2 to rise by a great deal, and we understand the properties of CO2 well enough to know that there will be substantial warming (most of which has not occurred yet, which some people seem to simply not grasp).
There are all sorts of useful topics to discuss within those parameters, and in fact all of the important decisions about how mankind behaves from this point forward are in the process of being made now.
It seems to me to be much more important to be discussing those issues. Really, the whole "is AGW real?" discussion is at least 20 years old.
Yes, it's real.
Your giving tina anne too much credit. She or he is only interested in denying reality, the same as Gord, mememine69 and the rest of them. Dont be fooled by the pretense of sincerity. Her or his responses prove different.

Since: Aug 08

Sheffield

#4012 Sep 17, 2008
Jeffrey K wrote:
<quoted text>
Your giving tina anne too much credit. She or he is only interested in denying reality, the same as Gord, mememine69 and the rest of them. Dont be fooled by the pretense of sincerity. Her or his responses prove different.
Typical ad hominem from an AGWist, backed up by.... nothing.

Since: Aug 08

Sheffield

#4013 Sep 17, 2008
WaltBennett wrote:
<quoted text>
... we understand the properties of CO2 well enough to know that there will be substantial warming (most of which has not occurred yet, which some people seem to simply not grasp).
But that's just it, Walt: there are plenty of respected scientists out there (well, ok, not respected by AGWists, but respected in general) who claim that the complex climate system (of which CO2 is one tiny part) is an incredibly complex system that no one can claim to really understand aith our current level of understanding. There are just too many factors, too many variables, too many 'unknowns'.
We don't 'know' as 'fact' that human-produced CO2 has any non-negligable effect.

If I can offer this as an olive branch: I *do* kind of understand why many AGWists get annoyed with us sceptics: you feel we are 'denying' something that is so obvious to everyone else, and is proven beyond doubt and think we are just being obstructive or something, or pig headed.
But to us, we believe that nothing in fact has been proven anywhere near beyond doubt, and that there is still so much to be learned and studied and tested before we commit ourselves to such radical policies. We believe there is still much room for doubt and are suspicious when told there is a '10 year window' till we reach a 'tipping point'. We see these as scare tactics that have been used before (they really have).
So we resent the use of the word 'denier' for these reasons. So you can see why there is such animosity between the two camps.

“It's winter again.”

Since: May 07

Anywhere I hang my hat.

#4014 Sep 17, 2008
another-peace-nic wrote:
<quoted text>
Tina, get serious. Gord thinks waves from radiated heat can cancel each other out.
I said Gord believes this. That’s not really true. Gord just poses as an idiot. Even he can see that his above conclusion would violate the conservation of energy and all that (mostly true) stuff about magnetism is just smoke.

“It's winter again.”

Since: May 07

Anywhere I hang my hat.

#4015 Sep 17, 2008
Davey boy,deniers grasp at any shred of “evidence” no mater how flimsy or frivolous it is, as long as it supports what they want to believe. We see arguments for “there is no greenhouse effect”,“CO2 does not effect the greenhouse effect”,“not much”,“man isn’t increasing CO2”,“much”,“there was no warming”,“much”,“the warming has stopped”,“the warming is just another cycle”,“it’s all a leftwing plot to take over the world”, etc. etc. etc. It doesn’t mater what the argument or how far speculative it is. The true skeptics in the AGW debate add to the science by pointing out weaknesses in methodology and conclusions. They have sometimes improved the science but not changed the core conclusions. We all know there are questions of degree and speed, and there may be questions about what is most important to society.(AGW might not be so important if Bush decides to “nuke” Iran for instance.)

So yes, many of us see the “denier” attitude of Google for “global warming can’t be true” as obstructionist and pig headed.

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#4016 Sep 17, 2008
WaltBennett wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen to yourself. You said that we are in a "cooling period", your implication being that we are no longer in a "warming period".
If that isn't what you meant, please clarify.
If it is, you were incorrect. Please see the chart I provided. In the last 30 years, one year was the 26th warmest ever; one was the 14th warmest ever; one was the 13th warmest ever; one was the tenth warmest ever. The remaining 26 years were all at least the 7th warmest year on record at the time. Of those, six were the highest on record. In other words, over 30 years the "highest recorded" temperature has fallen, on average, every 5 years.
What I wanted you to notice with the graph I linked to, is the annual variability within the record. I will bet you that no matter how cool 2008 is, it will be no worse than the tenth highest recorded temperature. Furthermore, within 5 years we will establish a new "highest" temperature.
Such has been the nature of the graph for the last 30 years, and in fact that line is accelerating.
sit down petal

cooling means the temperature is getting colder

do you comprehend?

its real, you can feel it - its not like the 'its getting warmer cause the computer models say so even though you dont feel it mythology'

you may need professional help

ask hansen - ooops hes the nutcase who got you int this in the first place

no look at the PDO - natural cycles - proven history - cold cycle has begun - its not that hard to understand - oh yeah its you were talkin about

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#4017 Sep 17, 2008
another-peace-nic wrote:
Davey boy,deniers grasp at any shred of “evidence” no mater how flimsy or frivolous it is, as long as it supports what they want to believe. We see arguments for “there is no greenhouse effect”,“CO2 does not effect the greenhouse effect”,“not much”,“man isn’t increasing CO2”,“much”,“there was no warming”,“much”,“the warming has stopped”,“the warming is just another cycle”,“it’s all a leftwing plot to take over the world”, etc. etc. etc. It doesn’t mater what the argument or how far speculative it is. The true skeptics in the AGW debate add to the science by pointing out weaknesses in methodology and conclusions. They have sometimes improved the science but not changed the core conclusions. We all know there are questions of degree and speed, and there may be questions about what is most important to society.(AGW might not be so important if Bush decides to “nuke” Iran for instance.)
So yes, many of us see the “denier” attitude of Google for “global warming can’t be true” as obstructionist and pig headed.
you really are sick - tell me why all your pseudo religion relies on trend lines and computer models both that ignore reality

are you sure you know how to sail that yacht - judging by your ineptitude on here I reckon you need paid labor to do it
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#4018 Sep 17, 2008
another-peace-nic wrote:
<quoted text>
I said Gord believes this. That’s not really true. Gord just poses as an idiot. Even he can see that his above conclusion would violate the conservation of energy and all that (mostly true) stuff about magnetism is just smoke.
First, Yes....I absolutely accept the validity of Electromagnetic Physics, just like every Scientist and Engineer on this planet does.

(Excluding the AGW so called "scientists" of course)

It has been in use since the 1800's and is used for "new" inventions like Radio and TV broadcasting.

Ever hear of these....or do you deny that they exist to?

Second, just what "conclusion" of mine are you referring to?
----------
OK, let's hear some of your WISDOM....just what part of Electromagnetic Physics violates Conservation of Energy?

And, exactly what part of magnetic fields (which you call magnetism) do you attribute to "just smoke"?

HAHAHA....what an IDIOT....I can't wait to hear your response!

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#4019 Sep 17, 2008
….the computer models upon which the UN’s climate panel unwisely founds its entire case have failed and failed and failed again to predict major events in the real climate.

a. The models have not projected the current multidecadal stasis in “global warming”:

b. no rise in temperatures since 1998; falling temperatures since late 2001; temperatures not expected to set a new record until 2015 (Keenlyside et al., 2008).

c. nor (until trained ex post facto) did they predict the fall in TS from 1940-1975;

d. nor 50 years’ cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005);

e. nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007);

f. nor the behavior of the great ocean oscillations (Lindzen, 2007),

g. nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age;

h. nor the decline since 2000 in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007);

i. nor the active 2004 hurricane season;

j. nor the inactive subsequent seasons;

k. nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously);

l. nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005);

m. nor the consequent surface “global warming” on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and even distant Pluto;

n. nor the eerily-continuing 2006 solar minimum;

o. nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in surface temperature from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.

As Monckton states, the computer models are demonstrable failures

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx...
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#4020 Sep 17, 2008
Notice that the AGW'ers have no problem dismissing Pyramid Power....and rightly so.

There is absolutely no science in support of Pyramid Power.

There is conclusive scientific evidence that this is a fraud.

Yet, they get offended when the same test is applied to AGW.

There is absolutely no science that supports AGW.
And, there is conclusive scientific evidence that AGW is a fraud.

Now, this is not meant to offend anybody....it's merely a statement of fact.

If anyone disagees with this, just produce ANY science or ANY Law of Science that supports AGW.

If 50 Billion Dollars of research in AGW has been spent, surely there must be some shread of scientific truth available?

All the AGW'ers have access to numerous papers on the subject, as do I.

I have yet to see even ONE paper address the very obvious contradictions with the Law of Conservation of Energy, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and all Electromagnetic
Field Physics.

The papers don't even use Vector math for Vector quantities....they use simple accounting type math.

All these Laws of Science, Principles of Science and Mathematics are beyond question....they have proven to be valid.

Why should anyone take AGW seriously when it cannot pass these fundamental tests of validity?

I don't care if we are talking about the claims of Pyramid Power, Cold Fusion or AGW, if it violates established science...there is a huge problem.

And, if there is absolutely no science that supports it....it is a fraud.

If the AGW'ers disagree with this....let's hear your reasons why you disagree.

Since: Aug 08

Sheffield

#4021 Sep 17, 2008
theworldasweknowit wrote:
….the computer models upon which the UN’s climate panel unwisely founds its entire case have failed and failed and failed again to predict major events in the real climate.
a. The models have not projected the current multidecadal stasis in “global warming”:
b. no rise in temperatures since 1998; falling temperatures since late 2001; temperatures not expected to set a new record until 2015 (Keenlyside et al., 2008).
c. nor (until trained ex post facto) did they predict the fall in TS from 1940-1975;
d. nor 50 years’ cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005);
e. nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007);
f. nor the behavior of the great ocean oscillations (Lindzen, 2007),
g. nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age;
h. nor the decline since 2000 in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007);
i. nor the active 2004 hurricane season;
j. nor the inactive subsequent seasons;
k. nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously);
l. nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005);
m. nor the consequent surface “global warming” on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and even distant Pluto;
n. nor the eerily-continuing 2006 solar minimum;
o. nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in surface temperature from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.
As Monckton states, the computer models are demonstrable failures
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx...
So right. Some AGWists - quite reasonably - ask that we provide evidence for our scepticism. Well you have outlined several reasons there. I have mentioned several on earlier posts also, which like yours and Gore's, were routinely ignored.
I wonder what motive they think we have for applying the age old scientific principal (until now) of 'scepticism'. I, for one, am not in the pay of any oil companies. I am just an inquisitive, politically minded Joe, who takes a great interest when the UN and governments start bringing in policies that threaten our freedom and way of life. I demand to see the science. I don't accept ANYTHING that a climate model tells us - because a climate model tells us nothing of value. It's a sophisticated smokescreen.
The AGW fingerprint that the IPCC predicted is not there.
I will not change my opinion until I see some sound scientific evidence for AGW. I certainly won't change my opinion just cos someone gets all iffeminate and bitchy and calls me a 'denier'. Like, grow up man!
I have listed earlier in this thread several facts that AGWists deny and refuse to acknowledge. So there is clearly a psychology at play here. The real deniers are calling the sceptics 'deniers'. They display all the signs of religious zealots who's prophet is being questioned. "How dare we question the mighty prophet!" is basically what they are saying.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#4022 Sep 17, 2008
Theworldasweknowit...

Michael R.Fox Ph.D.is one of the few reporters that actually understands science.

Monckton is fantasic in his knowledge of science and his drive to inform the public about the AGW fraud.

Thanks for your post.

WaltBennett

Since: Jan 07

Harrisburg, PA

#4023 Sep 17, 2008
Davey boy wrote:
<quoted text>
But that's just it, Walt: there are plenty of respected scientists out there (well, ok, not respected by AGWists, but respected in general) who claim that the complex climate system (of which CO2 is one tiny part) is an incredibly complex system that no one can claim to really understand aith our current level of understanding. There are just too many factors, too many variables, too many 'unknowns'.
We don't 'know' as 'fact' that human-produced CO2 has any non-negligable effect.
If I can offer this as an olive branch: I *do* kind of understand why many AGWists get annoyed with us sceptics: you feel we are 'denying' something that is so obvious to everyone else, and is proven beyond doubt and think we are just being obstructive or something, or pig headed.
But to us, we believe that nothing in fact has been proven anywhere near beyond doubt, and that there is still so much to be learned and studied and tested before we commit ourselves to such radical policies. We believe there is still much room for doubt and are suspicious when told there is a '10 year window' till we reach a 'tipping point'. We see these as scare tactics that have been used before (they really have).
So we resent the use of the word 'denier' for these reasons. So you can see why there is such animosity between the two camps.
The problem is that you will cling to charlatans and oppositionists in order to build a coalition. Your camp is too dirty, littered with the likes of Gord, World, JRS and so forth.

There is incredible uncertainty with regard to several major factors inthis discussion, among them: are there important negative feedbacks which will slow the temperature rise? Are we correct about residence time and amplification factors? Are the proposed solutions remotely workable? Do they have any chance of "success"? How would we define that success?

I agree, some of those answers sound made up, and they mostly are.

What we do know is simply this: CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas, and in one century we spiked it as much as nature does in 50,000 years, and we laid a new level on top of the old one. In both cases we have no idea what the outcome will be, but all analysis so far points to a much hotter planet within this century.

As far as I'm concerned it's going to happen. Our time and money would be better spent planning how we will adapt to that world. Certainly our children and their children will live in a world of constant change and peril.

Since: Aug 08

Sheffield

#4024 Sep 17, 2008
WaltBennett wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that you will cling to charlatans and oppositionists in order to build a coalition. Your camp is too dirty, littered with the likes of Gord, World, JRS and so forth.
And your camp is littered with the likes of Mr Hockey Stick Mann, Hansen, and Gore.
What about the sceptic Koutsoyiannis? Is he a charlatan? And this word 'oppositionist'? That suggests an ideology of 'opposition'- no such ideology in the world exists, so the term is meaningless and introduced only to be ad hominem.

Here's a document following the study of effectivity of climate models. It's very interesting (I think), the data are presented to be scrutinised by all, and the conclusion from the data is that the models have such a wide margin of error that they tell us absolutely nothing of value - read it for yourself.
Now, is that the writing of charlatans? If so, explain why. If not, then admit that the models are useless, or else one can only conclude that your belief in the models is a matter of religious faith!

BTW, I only chose this as one example. There are numerous examples of uncertainties that Hansen et al present as fact or at least as "99% certain" or whatever. I take exception to a scientists using such a term as "99% certain", because, as you probably know, this is so unscientific - there's no equeation that gives a result at the bottom of the page of "99%"! And yet the term is used by Hansen in a factual way. This makes me (to use the word again) "scepticle" that he is giving us pure scientific fact and truth. ANd when I read the likes of Steve McIntyre (who again presents his data always to be scrutinised by all) and I think "Hmmm. This guy is a sceptic. He believes it is right to question this further, and he tells us why, and presents the data. Maybe there's something in that." And so, I remain 'sceptical'.
I don't deny what we do know - we have real measurements of surface warming over the last century and more. Don't deny that. One doesn't deny facts - one DOES deny opinion and conjecture presented as fact. Like when Al Gore stated in his film that the relationship between CO2 and temperature was clear for all to see, and pointed to the graph going back thousands of years - but he already knew that the cause and effect were the other way round to what he was suggesting, but said nothing! He basically lied! So, I am 'sceptical'.

Since: Aug 08

Sheffield

#4025 Sep 17, 2008
Oops - the link is here, sorry:

http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/864/2/documen...

WaltBennett

Since: Jan 07

Plymouth Meeting, PA

#4026 Sep 17, 2008
Davey boy wrote:
<quoted text>
And your camp is littered with the likes of Mr Hockey Stick Mann, Hansen, and Gore.
Well I'm sorry that you only read the first sentence. I was interested in your opinion of the rest of it.

As for those 3 names: Mann et al have confirmed and reconfirmed their original findings. Their latest work was recently published. You will find slightly better defined MWP and LIA. You will find anomalous warming in the late 20th century. Same as before, just better represented.

Hansen? What's your beef with him? He is a pioneer and a lone voice in many ways. He has tried to alert the world that there is little time left, and he's probably late with that effort. Should he resign his position in order to be an advocate for a position? You could make that case.

Gore? He's a politican and a showman. Pick on him all you want.
Fun Facts

AOL

#4027 Sep 17, 2008
The skeptics post evidence of their opinions. The AGWs post opinions, no evidence. Except CHT, at least he always backs up what he says with a reference.

Walt, start putting references with your opinions and maybe you will have a chance of convincing someone of your position.

No reference = no evidence = no buy.

Since: Sep 08

Page, AZ

#4028 Sep 17, 2008
WaltBennett wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that you will cling to charlatans ... Your camp is too dirty, littered...
There is incredible uncertainty...some of those answers sound made up, and they mostly are...What we do know is simply this... Certainly our children and their children will live in a world of constant change and peril.
Ross McKitrick of McIntyre & McKitrick fame - the ones who busted Mann's fraudulent hockey stick, and busted Hansen's falsehoods about hottest years -
graphed the past few decades' temperatures against the lost Russian temperature stations. The dark blue line represents the number of temperature stations: the vertical graph lines represent Hansen's database for global temperatures. Watch what happens to Hansen's temperatures when they are lost with the Soviet collapse.

Here's the graph:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvs...

These are the two men who busted the Mann/Bradley/Hughes Hockey Stick, and Hansen's Hottest years falsehoods.

The denial is definately on the part of the choirboys for Goracle's church of "SACRIFICE our CATTLE because THEIR FARTS ANGER THE INFRARED GOD."
If you buy some "carbon credits" from the High Priest Goracle you can prove you're penitent - that your heart's in the right place. Sanctifying "credits" bought from the Goracle to purchase penitence and prove your heart's in the right place - that you're a member of the "sanctified few" in the "CHURCH of the BELIEVERS in the BURNING H*LLFIRE!"
If we don't all "repent" we will literally - think about how churchlike this all is - LITERALLY -
BURN IN H*LL for our SINS.

Who's in denial when you have those who've drunk the koolaid denying electromagnetic waveform fundamentals? When shown electromagnetic fundamentals in an encyclopedia, call it "smoke" like a Luddite?
When, after they are simply told what the driving mechanism of AGW is: tropopause amplification due to thin bands of concentrated "greenhouse" gases - they deny, deny, after having their OWN PAGES DESCRIBING THE MECHANISM SHOWN TO THEM?

High priests Mann and Hansen who can't tell us the weather YESTERDAY?" Hansen - the man whose JOB is to TELL YOU THE WEATHER is suddenly telling you the WORLD is ending, then puts out the figures: and CAN'T TELL YOU THE CORRECT WEATHER YESTERDAY?"
Lmao WTF?!? With satellites, radiosondes, deep sea robots, computers, and he can't tell you what the weather was YESTERDAY?

People suggesting that it would be better if we killed our livestock because their FARTS are ANGERING THE GOD of GLOBAL WARMING?

Think about these people- how they sound, what they say.

Their priests exposed as frauds; their Bishop of the Blessed Thermometer can't tell you the weather YESTERDAY; their High Priest the Goracle looks like a big fat gremlin, and suddenly wants to sell you some "carbon credits" -CARBON CREDITS?- so you can be "SANCTIFIED for your SINS?"

They claim COW FARTS are ANGERING the InfraredGod and if we don't sacrifice them it'll just mean we DESERVE to BURN IN HELL for what? for our SINS of burning some fuel?

WTF?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#4029 Sep 17, 2008
WaltBennett wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they're not. The evidence in fact grows only stronger.
You need to start revealing your sources, so we can figure out if it's you or your sources which are so confused...
I notice that your sources are not being revealed.

Also the evidence that it growing stronger is now several years in the past. Further research has shown that the orginal theory had several flaws in it.

The part that confuses you is that you haven't kept up with the research.

Since: Sep 08

Page, AZ

#4030 Sep 17, 2008
You DO realize when Hansen had to retract his " top ten hottest years" and RE-issue it because it was wrong, and he got CAUGHT by an AMATEUR who was SKEPTICAL that means he effectively, EVEN with computers, satellites, all that: after telling us all we could really depend on the WORLD ENDING on HIS WORD - can't tell the weather YESTERDAY, much LESS TOMORROW...

Charlatans? Littered fakes? Like Mann/Bradley/Hughes, and algorithms that make hockey sticks out of CALIBRATION STATIC?

We should sacrifice all our cattle so the INFRARED GOD won't be ANGRY AT US and BURN US IN HELL?

But the High Priest, the Goracle... who looks like a big fat fucking gremlin, lost the easiest presidential election of the last century, will sell you some "CARBON CREDITS??" to "SANCTIFY YOU???" FOR YOUR SINS???

LISTEN at these fucking nutcases, people. Denying electromagnetic waveform fundamentals found in wikipedia? Denying their OWN RUNAWAY CATASTROPHE MECHANISM when SHOWN IT on the pages of thier OWN WEBSITES??
Do you realize, when these koolaid intoxicated LOONS tell you that "electromagnetics is just "smoke" they are telling you RADIOS WON'T WORK because they VIOLATE the LAWS of Anthropogenic Global Warmers? That "all them magnetics iz just 'smoke!'
THAT is the kind of Luddite insanity these koolaid intoxicated IDIOTS want to tell you: that RADIO: doesn't work. That INFRARED LIGHT used in FIBER OPTICS: NOBODY knows how any of that stuff works; it's all "smoke" is what one of these clowns told you here.

Who here is acting insane? Who here is going on about sacrificing animals because they're farting, SO WE DON'T ALL BURN IN HELL?

Who here is talking about "giving the high priest some money, so you can get some "sanctifying credits" to "offset your sins?"

THINK about it, people. THINK about what these LOONS, are trying to ASK you to BUY IN to.

The graph I posted is by the man who busted Mann. The man who busted HANSEN. This man simply decided to compare temperatures with the number of stations sampled: and you can see CLEARLY what is going on.

They combine these FAKE readings with the FLAT ones of satellites and radiosondes and voila: CO2 and COW FARTS iz a KILLIN US ALL, and if you'd have ELECTED the GORACLE he COULD HAVE SAVED THE EARTH but NOW, BECAUSE YOUR COWS IZ A FARTIN, THUH WORLDZ A-GONNA END, TO PUNISH YOU ALL, FOR YO' SINZ! SHO-NUFF IZ!!

Goracle is gonna SHOW em for electin that COWboy shrub bush! Hez a GONNA be BIGGER'N duh PREZUHDENT!

You can buy some holy CARBON CREDITS from the GORACLE while HIZ HOUSE uses 19 TIMES the CARBON everybody else's does. and prove YOU STILL LUVZ DA GORACLE MO' THAN THAT TEXICAN COWBOY GEORGE BUSH!
he's a gonna get everybody to KILL dey cattlez cuz dem COW FARTZ makes GORACLE's INFRARED GOD MAD, MAD AT EVUHBODY! Sho nuff!

You people are nothing short of fucking insane.

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 7 min Into The Night 41,577
News White House will override Obama's climate plan (Oct '17) 2 hr Big Al 6,188
The Pseudoscience of Global Warming (Mar '18) 4 hr hojo 412
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) Fri Billclinfart 65,015
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Fri PantsOnFire 12,420
News Donald Trump says climate change isn't a hoax Fri Trump is a joke 4
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) Oct 18 Into The Night 5,696