Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30878 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#28188 May 30, 2012
SpamBot wrote:
The poster above is one of you because he never attacks any of you.
You must be one of the newer fellas.
Check the archives.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#28189 May 30, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is an example of the fossil fuel industry trying to peddle influence.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/05/coal-indu...
Of course you will have to go after the source, otherwise you will have to eat your words.
You mean the nasty trick of using enviromentalist tricks against the them.

Also as you put it I have to go after the source means that you knew your source was biased and one sided. That it was propaganda. That I would check the source and find out that it is nothing more than a source of enviro propaganda. Yet would thought that others would not think of doing so themselves.

Funny, yet you actually proved me right not wrong.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#28190 May 30, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Your errors are the talk of all threads in which you lurk to lie about anything and everything.
Face it, tina. Your credibility sucks, too.
Don't reply to me but notice what is being posted about you.
But if I don't then how will you learn why you were wrong. For example the claim that my "errors" are the talk of all the threads. You really think that is what they are talking about on those threads dealing with sports or Entertainment? Somehow I doubt most of those people know I exist. And if I was really making the "errors" you are telling me about that you would want me to stop.

You claim that my creditability sucks while ignoring that for many it is your creditability and not mine that sucks. You have been referred to in the past as a cut and paste poster. Not a ringing endorsement of your posts or your creditability.

I have not only noticed what was said about me but who was saying it. Which is to say a rather small number of alarmist and I will not say all since that would be wrong are the ones saying it and those are all those are upset with anyone who disagrees with them. They are upset with those who not only post things that they disagree with but have posted facts to back up what they say.

Maybe you should pay attention to what others are saying about you. Then again maybe you have and that is the reason why you do not do the cut and paste routine any more. Yet you still have a long way to go before you regain your creditability.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#28191 May 30, 2012
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Run Tina! Run!
The trolls are revolting!
They have always looked and smelled revolting.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#28192 May 30, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Crawl back under your bridge.
Then where would you live. That would leave you homeless.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#28193 May 30, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
Open letter to deniers,
The poster above is one of you because he never attacks any of you.
What are you going to do in ways of not encouraging him with your icons or words or whatever?
Thanks.
You mean it bothers you what others think of you. I would have thought that since you have acted so foolishly that you would not be bothered by it.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#28194 May 30, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
Open letter to deniers,
The poster above is one of you because he never attacks any of you.
What are you going to do in ways of not encouraging him with your icons or words or whatever?
Thanks.
He can post whatever he wants. Consensus is not the objective of a skeptic.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#28195 May 30, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the nasty trick of using enviromentalist tricks against the them.
Also as you put it I have to go after the source means that you knew your source was biased and one sided. That it was propaganda. That I would check the source and find out that it is nothing more than a source of enviro propaganda. Yet would thought that others would not think of doing so themselves.
Funny, yet you actually proved me right not wrong.
Chase it down, honey. It really happened.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#28196 May 30, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Chase it down, honey. It really happened.
I did and discover that what your missing is as Paul Harvey put it, "The rest of the Story."

I don't doubt that what the coal people did was borrow a page from the enviromentalist/liberal playbook and import people. Which is what your real beef is. That before you could fill the place with people porotesting against coal and not they can fill it with people supporting coal.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#28197 May 30, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
.. Consensus is not the objective of a skeptic.
Whatever. You are not a skeptic. You are a denier.

You always follow another denier. Otherwise he would be calling you names.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#28198 May 30, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the nasty trick of using enviromentalist tricks against the them.
Warmists hate that.

Every time I've asked for a full accounting of all the funding for AGW, I get no answer... other than screeds about their learned "scientists", amid heralds of their credentials, reputations and integrity.

But if only their claims meant anything.

Peter Gleick stole (acquired under false pretenses) some documents, forged a couple and then attributed the lot to Heartland.

Hear anything from the warmists about his credentials? His honesty? His integrity? Was he denounced? Ostracized? Fired?

--Scientific American asked Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist who has been a consistently moderate voice at the center of the climate and ethics debate, to shed some light on the heated situation. At the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Schmidt has developed widely used models that assess how the oceans and atmosphere affect each other. He is also a co-founder and contributor at RealClimate.org , a Web site that aims to put climate issues in a scientific context.

Do the actions of Peter Gleick undercut climate science and scientists?

The outcry against Gleick is symptomatic of the wider issue of focusing on individuals instead of the science. This is actually a potential opportunity to focus again on real climate issues. If all we’re going to focus on is who did what, when, instead of the science, the policy, the solutions, that would be a waste of time.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

Translation: pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Schmidts harshest words against Gleick, "I have no insight into why he did what he did. I just know that it wasn’t a good idea."

Yeah... there's integrity for ya.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#28199 May 30, 2012
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Warmists hate that.
Every time I've asked for a full accounting of all the funding for AGW, I get no answer... other than screeds about their learned "scientists", amid heralds of their credentials, reputations and integrity.
But if only their claims meant anything.
Peter Gleick stole (acquired under false pretenses) some documents, forged a couple and then attributed the lot to Heartland.
Hear anything from the warmists about his credentials? His honesty? His integrity? Was he denounced? Ostracized? Fired?
--Scientific American asked Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist who has been a consistently moderate voice at the center of the climate and ethics debate, to shed some light on the heated situation. At the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Schmidt has developed widely used models that assess how the oceans and atmosphere affect each other. He is also a co-founder and contributor at RealClimate.org , a Web site that aims to put climate issues in a scientific context.
Do the actions of Peter Gleick undercut climate science and scientists?
The outcry against Gleick is symptomatic of the wider issue of focusing on individuals instead of the science. This is actually a potential opportunity to focus again on real climate issues. If all we’re going to focus on is who did what, when, instead of the science, the policy, the solutions, that would be a waste of time.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
Translation: pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Schmidts harshest words against Gleick, "I have no insight into why he did what he did. I just know that it wasn’t a good idea."
Yeah... there's integrity for ya.
blah blah

You are either a moron or an idiot. Perhaps both.

Why should any poster know about funding sources unless they are a paid shill like you!

You stink!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#28200 May 30, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>blah blah
You are either a moron or an idiot. Perhaps both.
Why should any poster know about funding sources unless they are a paid shill like you!
You stink!
Oh lookey here.

A typical reply when questioning the standards of the warmists.

Run along.... nap time soon.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#28201 May 30, 2012
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh lookey here.
A typical reply when questioning the standards of the warmists.
Run along.... nap time soon.
You run along, lol.:)

You think you are the gatekeeper of two threads. You are constantly posting "run along" to other posters.

Your nicks are adopted by other deniers like minus one and tina. You are the man behind the curtain, aren't you?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#28202 May 30, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You run along, lol.:)
You think you are the gatekeeper of two threads. You are constantly posting "run along" to other posters.
Your nicks are adopted by other deniers like minus one and tina. You are the man behind the curtain, aren't you?
psst... you get treated like an impudent child because you act like one.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#28203 May 30, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I did and discover that what your missing is as Paul Harvey put it, "The rest of the Story."
I don't doubt that what the coal people did was borrow a page from the enviromentalist/liberal playbook and import people. Which is what your real beef is. That before you could fill the place with people porotesting against coal and not they can fill it with people supporting coal.
You called me to task because you said that I was promoting a conspiracy that the fossil fuel industry was stacking the deck. You did call it hype but now you agree that the fossil fuel industry does stack the deck. Really, is it conspiracy or fact?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#28204 May 30, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>blah blah
You are either a moron or an idiot. Perhaps both.
Why should any poster know about funding sources unless they are a paid shill like you!
You stink!
What an intelligent response. Not childish at all.

As for why should they know, so they can judge for themselves based on all the facts. That is the reason why they should know about the funding source.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#28205 May 30, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
You called me to task because you said that I was promoting a conspiracy that the fossil fuel industry was stacking the deck. You did call it hype but now you agree that the fossil fuel industry does stack the deck. Really, is it conspiracy or fact?
Yes, and all you had was someone was handing out t-shirts, cash, and a meal to people. If that is a conspiracy then the democrats have had a conspiracy for decades now. Enviromentalist have a decade of doing the exact same thing.

Or in other words the fossil fuel industry has decided to use the same tactics used against it to defend themselves.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#28206 May 30, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and all you had was someone was handing out t-shirts, cash, and a meal to people. If that is a conspiracy then the democrats have had a conspiracy for decades now. Enviromentalist have a decade of doing the exact same thing.
Or in other words the fossil fuel industry has decided to use the same tactics used against it to defend themselves.
In other words, the fossil fuel industry IS using any means possible to deny global warming. What I said is not a conspiracy but factual.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#28207 May 30, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, the fossil fuel industry IS using any means possible to deny global warming. What I said is not a conspiracy but factual.
"In other words..."

Knock it off, would you?

Your tactic of trying to put words in another's mouth is tiresome.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min taletha 341,575
News Judge jails Kentucky clerk for refusing marriag... 4 min WasteWater 262
News In climate bid, Obama stares down melting Alask... 7 min positronium 163
News Trump: Bush should speak English in the US 8 min Responsibility 78
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Nuculur option 1,278,919
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 10 min Mr_SKY 12,973
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 11 min HILLARY 2016 194,323
More from around the web