Story of the Year: It's Global Warming, Stupid

Dec 31, 2012 Full story: Common Dreams 324

My favorite headline of 2012 was " It's Global Warming, Stupid ," which appeared on the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek on Nov.

Full Story

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#303 Feb 7, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
My long list was virtually 100% of the world renown, SCIENCE based organizations.
I could include political organizations such as GreenPeace and Sierra Club. But did not.
You have **0** science organizations that say global warming is a hoax,(excluding petroleum backed science organizations that are on neutral) because 100% of these are right wing organizations.
<quoted text>
Actually, it should make it easy for you to refute it... if you could.
You can't!
<quoted text>
Gee, weren't you the one who said it was twits that don't support their statements.
Where's the beef by a REPUTABLE science journal.
I already proved to you that Roy Spencer's article you cited was proven to have such flagrant errors in it (and it was published in a satellite journal, which is his speciality) that the editor resigned.
You refused to even acknowledge it. Which is about the time I started calling you a liar.
<quoted text>
Then the article itself wouldn't be officially from NASA would it. Of course you can have nut case letters.
Now are you really THAT unintelligent?
<quoted text>.
yes, like the right wing misinforamtion crap site you REGULARLY post frm.
<quoted text>
You mean, unlike you?
<quoted text>
ha ha And you don't read well. Your author asks should NASA tell the truth when its own satellites are telling them it is warming.
From YOUR source:
"But what is NASA to do? Many of its satellites are providing climate scientists the data they use to make their findings. Is the space agency to deny its own data?"
Tsk tsk. LOL.
Virtually, as in not real? The fact is that your list had organizations that are more about politics and not science. You had lobbyist who are funded by Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.

As for what I had I had the ones who are not government funded.

Also I have no beef with reputable science journals but what you had was not reputable science journals but the sceince equlivant of the national Enquirer.

Also your claim was I could not find one with a offical NASA logo. Which only goes to prove that the logo mean little. Anyone can use it since it is public domain. As for what the satellites are saying, they are not saying anything since they are machines. What they are reporting is an entirely different story and many at NASA say the data report something other than what you want it to say.

And yes, you should look deeper to find the truth like me. Your posts have shown that you have not looked any further than what you wanted to find.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#304 Feb 7, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
See why I keep some of my old posts.
Because some liars, ignore them and then repost their original lie.
Tina Ann says: Do you realized that the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences once published articles claiming that man was going to cause an ice age.
Walloper10:
I do. Here is how you are distorting it. Again you show you do not know the difference between a hypothesis with a solid theory.
PROOF:
In 1971, Rasool and Schneider wrote a scientific paper that was focused on entitled Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138-141).
--The paper never actually predicted an ice age. Instead, it projected a possible scenario - if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 times then sustained those levels for several years, it could trigger an ice age.
--Carbon dioxide was assumed to play a minor role.
--Shortly after, Schneider realized he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. Also he found most aerosols had natural causes, which would not be affected by human activities (i.e., smog).
In 1974, he published a retraction of his earlier paper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneide...
Climate modeling was just starting. There was no consensus on global warming back then.
-- In fact in 1975, the US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report, when asked to comment on climate projections concluded
"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..."
Compare that today where the NAS and virtually ALL the science organizations have put out statements strongly warning of the dangers of manmade global warming.
Here is the US National Academy of Science's current position: "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.
See your gross distortion?????
I'll just repost this again, if I see your original lie... again, Ms. Tina Anne.
Yet he published it, wonder how many other papers have had a retraction published? How many more of the ones you are claiming as proof will be retracted if not already.

Also, wikipedia is not accepted by university professors due to it's history of errors and I have to admit that I have decided to use that same policy as well. So as far as I am concerned wikipeida has more fiction than fact on the subject since Connolley cooked so many entires.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#305 Feb 7, 2013
PHD wrote:
No video please.
I agree, video is such a slow way to gain knowledge. So is audio, I have read the entire transcript of the Rush Limbaugh show in under an hour which is about the same amount of time it took me to read all three presidental debates.
PHD

Overton, TX

#306 Feb 8, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, video is such a slow way to gain knowledge. So is audio, I have read the entire transcript of the Rush Limbaugh show in under an hour which is about the same amount of time it took me to read all three presidental debates.
Waste of time reading trash limbaugh.You do an excellant job giving the wallop10 a good walloped again and again.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#307 Feb 8, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Virtually, as in not real? The fact is that your list had organizations that are more about politics and not science. You had lobbyist who are funded by Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science? You were making some crazy statements about them, that's the reason I guess.

And NASA, NAS, Royalty Society, etc etc... you just ignore these.

HA HA HA
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
As for what I had I had the ones who are not government funded.
Also I have no beef with reputable science journals but what you had was not reputable science journals but the sceince equlivant of the national Enquirer.
Your **blank list** is ...telling.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Also your claim was I could not find one with a offical NASA logo. Which only goes to prove that the logo mean little.
Since you have never produced an official NASA website {as evidenced by their logo} that says anything except global warming is a SERIOUS threat...

just another looney post where you are tying yourself up in knots.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone can use it since it is public domain.
YOU couldn't, remember? Gee, you have amnesia.
Else you are lying. Guess which one I suspect.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
As for what the satellites are saying, they are not saying anything since they are machines. What they are reporting is an entirely different story and many at NASA say the data report something other than what you want it to say.
Gee, your computer programs you claim to write for a living must be garbage too, unless they can speak to you. You're a riot.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And yes, you should look deeper to find the truth like me. Your posts have shown that you have not looked any further than what you wanted to find.
I know of NO bigger liar here than you!

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#308 Feb 8, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, video is such a slow way to gain knowledge. So is audio, I have read the entire transcript of the Rush Limbaugh show in under an hour which is about the same amount of time it took me to read all three presidental debates.
Ah a Rush Limbaugh Dittohead.

I see where you get your "science" from.
PHD

Overton, TX

#310 Feb 9, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah a Rush Limbaugh Dittohead.
I see where you get your "science" from.
Not true liar, you only deal in scientific science fiction. wallop10 gets walloped again and again.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#312 Feb 12, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Waste of time reading trash limbaugh.You do an excellant job giving the wallop10 a good walloped again and again.
No more than the time reading skepticalscience. The real purpose is to see what different sides of the argument are saying and Limbaugh gives preference to those who disagree with him when screening callers. After all, it improves his ratings when he does. It is similar to how you compare Wallop and myself. Topix would cease to exist is everyone here agreed with each other.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#313 Feb 12, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
The American Association for the Advancement of Science? You were making some crazy statements about them, that's the reason I guess.
And NASA, NAS, Royalty Society, etc etc... you just ignore these.
HA HA HA
<quoted text>
Your **blank list** is ...telling.
<quoted text>
Since you have never produced an official NASA website {as evidenced by their logo} that says anything except global warming is a SERIOUS threat...
just another looney post where you are tying yourself up in knots.
<quoted text>
YOU couldn't, remember? Gee, you have amnesia.
Else you are lying. Guess which one I suspect.
<quoted text>
Gee, your computer programs you claim to write for a living must be garbage too, unless they can speak to you. You're a riot.
<quoted text>
I know of NO bigger liar here than you!
What was crazy about what I said. I even included a link to thier web page that talked about how they have scientist working with politicians (lobbying). And I have produced sites that disagree with your claims that featured the NASA logo. As I said before, it is public domain so anyone can use it. Including me.

I also noticed that you claim that the programs (models) I have written must be garbage. Yet that "garbage" has made millions and predicted the housing bubble with a high degree of accuracy. It has predicted the unemployment rate within point two for the past five years.

You also claim that I am lying and yet your only proof is that I contratdict what you what to believe is true. If an impartial third party was to review this claim they would start to wonder if the problem isn't with what you need to feel is true. That you have become so emotionally invested in this belief that you feel a need to attack, to call it a lie in order to shield your fragile ego.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#314 Feb 12, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah a Rush Limbaugh Dittohead.
I see where you get your "science" from.
You mean researching what all interested parties are saying before leaping to an conclusion.

The odds that everything Limbaugh is saying is wrong is small. As the old saying goes, "Even the blind squrril will occassionally find a nut". Of course the fact that climate change is more a political issue than a scientific one means that Limbuagh has his finger on the pulse of one major group in this country and that group is a major voting block.
shameless-li

Denver, CO

#315 Feb 12, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
As the old saying goes, "Even the blind squrril will occassionally find a nut".
how true...
PHD

Overton, TX

#316 Feb 12, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
No more than the time reading skepticalscience. The real purpose is to see what different sides of the argument are saying and Limbaugh gives preference to those who disagree with him when screening callers. After all, it improves his ratings when he does. It is similar to how you compare Wallop and myself. Topix would cease to exist is everyone here agreed with each other.
Limbaugh the commander of drug abuse. He is pure entertainment to some. No I don't compare you to wallop10 that gets walloped again and again. Sit down now you are many steps and a cut above the wallop10 AKA walloped agian and again. If the ratings drop on the drug abuser the network will drop it like it has the killer virus.my atgument with you was on wind mills kill more birds and you are to date factually incorrect.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#317 Feb 12, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
No more than the time reading skepticalscience. The real purpose is to see what different sides of the argument are saying and Limbaugh gives preference to those who disagree with him when screening callers. After all, it improves his ratings when he does. It is similar to how you compare Wallop and myself.
You're in fantasy land if you think Limbaugh gives equal time.
But then... you've demonstrated you ARE in right wing fantasy land.
PHD

Overton, TX

#318 Feb 13, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're in fantasy land if you think Limbaugh gives equal time.
But then... you've demonstrated you ARE in right wing fantasy land.
More BS from the commander TROLL.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#319 Feb 13, 2013
A peanut for the troll.
PHD

Overton, TX

#320 Feb 14, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
A peanut for the troll.
More scientific science fiction and hate from the walloped again and again.
PHD

Overton, TX

#322 Feb 14, 2013
No, global warming is scientific science fiction.Use your calender for the day and date. Well that could be scientific science fiction also.
PHD

Overton, TX

#323 Feb 14, 2013
The origin of the seven-day week is the religious significance that was placed on the seventh day by ancient cultures, including the Babylonian and Jewish civilizations. Gee we could have had a four day week.
Hey bro

Los Angeles, CA

#324 Feb 14, 2013
Global warming or climate change is a false myth believed mostly by women.
PHD

Overton, TX

#325 Feb 14, 2013
Hey bro wrote:
Global warming or climate change is a false myth believed mostly by women.
Therefore, what you are saying wallop10 AKA walloped again and again, spaced out spacedoutblues and “pinheadlitesout are women. That bunch represents a sad day for the female gender.

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.

Hurricane Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
El Nino may bring drought to Tonga Sat Josh 2
Body of Texas sheriff's deputy found in lake Sep 20 paddyomalley 1
New hurricane heads toward... Sep 19 rollo 1
Filipinos crowd capital for huge Catholic parade (Jan '14) Sep 19 ELIAS IBARRA 39
Rain From Tropical Storm Begins Falling on Arizona Sep 18 Gary 1
Pacific storm blast pushes rain into Arizona Sep 17 Phoenix 1
Utahns stranded in hotel destroyed by Hurricane... Sep 17 Phoenix 1
•••

Hurricane People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••