Hooking up with alex 'king of the troofers' jones should automatically disqualify anyone from considered a serious source on any subject.

The war against Government Mind Control™ continues!

With guests, Lord "CO2 is Plant Food" Monckton, Alex "Still Crazy" Jones, and Conpiracy TV host Jesse "The Body" Ventura!

re: #1 Sharmuta

Hooking up with alex 'king of the troofers' jones should automatically disqualify anyone from considered a serious source on any subject.

Agreed, Monckton really shoots himself in the foot on this one if indeed it is his desire to be seen as a legitimate sceptic as opposed to a denier.

re: #3 bagua

Agreed, Monckton really shoots himself in the foot on this one if indeed it is his desire to be seen as a legitimate sceptic as opposed to a denier.

His feet have many bullet holes already. One more won't matter to those that believe what he says.

re: #1 Sharmuta

Hooking up with alex 'king of the troofers' jones should automatically disqualify anyone from considered a serious source on any subject.

What's depressing is the sheer number of people who've appeared on the deranged turd's show. I wonder if Lord Monckton will be going on George Noory's show sometime later to describe how global warming is actually caused by the neutron emissions from the UFOs the Noory audience seems to believe continue to visit us.

Alex Jones is finding much more celebrity and influence on the right than he ever did on the left.

He's been all over Fox news with Beck and others, here he is on Fox business too:

Link.

re: #4 recusancy

His feet have many bullet holes already. One more won't matter to those that believe what he says.

For example: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

re: #4 recusancy

His feet have many bullet holes already. One more won't matter to those that believe what he says.

Indeed, but this one certainly won't help and who knows which shot proves to be the "killer"?

The difficulty with denying global warming is that it's tough to come up with photos showing an ice-free Glacier National Park from a century ago. It's difficult to come up with old records showing that the Delaware river used to remain ice-free in the 1700's year-round.

It's difficult to insist that CO2 mostly comes from volcanoes, when the graph of CO2 atmospheric concentration moves smoothly upward from July to July to July, instead of in fits and starts as this or that volcano blows.

It's easy to get on a TV show pitching contrarian conspiracy theories.

Here's Monckton talking about AIDS:

.. there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.

The hero of the climate skeptics.

Get this. The other guest, Damon Vickers was on the Glenn Beck Variety Hour Show. During that time he mentioned Alex Jones.

Just as in the James Burke special, connections.

re: #9 bagua

Indeed, but this one certainly won't help and who knows which shot proves to be the "killer"?

The only thing that will help is if he says: "Oh, I was wrong guys... My bad. Disregard everything I said previously."

re: #12 Gus 802

Bahaha I love that Alex Jones posts on his website something a fourteen year old girl would say about being mentioned on a popular girl's twitter or MySpace. OMGOMGOMG DAVID VITTERS MENTIONED ME ON THE BECK SHOW OMG!!!

I bet we've already staved off he next Ice Age & let's stop now.

re: #11 Charles

should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.

At GITMO?

re: #11 Charles

Suddenly his appeal to the kook crowd makes complete sense to me.

re: #11 Charles

Here's Monckton talking about AIDS:

The hero of the climate skeptics.

That guy is a very scary a-hole. What is scarier is people belive him.

re: #18 Cathypop

That guy is a very scary a-hole. What is scarier is people belive him.

people believe in the Devil...I'm not surprised

re: #19 albusteve

people believe in the Devil...I'm not surprised

Oh Crap!

Monckton is not a particularly influential voice amongst those that have scientific doubts about climate change. For my part, I read Climate Audit, Lucia's Blackboard, Dr. Roy Spencer's blog, and Roger Pielke Jr.'s blog. Actually all 4 of them believe that humanity is causing changes in our temperature. These are rational and heavily scientific blogs, and reveal significant problems in the "consensus" view, specifically with the accuracy of the climate models & the legitimacy of climate reconstructions. There are multiple problems that have not been adequately explained in the literature. The recent data leak at CRU backs up years of work by Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) on their studies. There has been a concerted effort to deny access to data for a long, long time; the emails simply put it in black and white. Charles I really wish you would not be so keen to pile on fringe elements of this debate, while ignoring the sane voices (not just referring to this post...). If you only read the comments section of Anthony Watts' page, the "articles" of Lord Monckton, and the ramblings of Alex Jones, you'll get the impression that the skeptics are a bunch of insane science-hating people. The reality is a bit different. It's like when people used to pull out anti-Muslim comments from LGF and then portray the entire site as a cesspool of racism. It's not accurate.

Looks like the Disco Institute is really hyping up the CRU news over at Evolution News & Views.

Lots of corollary here.

re: #1 Sharmuta

Hooking up with alex 'king of the troofers' jones should automatically disqualify anyone from considered a serious source on any subject.

Absolutely agreed.

I automatically lose all respect for anyone who considers Jones credible, or who tells me that they agree with him on anything. He's a crank and a paranoid loon. I can't understand why anyone would buy into the snake oil he's selling.

re: #22 Gus 802

Looks like the Disco Institute is really hyping up the CRU news over at Evolution News & Views.

Lots of corollary here.

Proving once again that climate change deniers and creationists are very often the same people.

re: #21 kf

Monckton is not a particularly influential voice amongst those that have scientific doubts about climate change. For my part, I read Climate Audit, Lucia's Blackboard, Dr. Roy Spencer's blog, and Roger Pielke Jr.'s blog. Actually all 4 of them believe that humanity is causing changes in our temperature. These are rational and heavily scientific blogs, and reveal significant problems in the "consensus" view, specifically with the accuracy of the climate models & the legitimacy of climate reconstructions. There are multiple problems that have not been adequately explained in the literature. The recent data leak at CRU backs up years of work by Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) on their studies. There has been a concerted effort to deny access to data for a long, long time; the emails simply put it in black and white. Charles I really wish you would not be so keen to pile on fringe elements of this debate, while ignoring the sane voices (not just referring to this post...). If you only read the comments section of Anthony Watts' page, the "articles" of Lord Monckton, and the ramblings of Alex Jones, you'll get the impression that the skeptics are a bunch of insane science-hating people. The reality is a bit different. It's like when people used to pull out anti-Muslim comments from LGF and then portray the entire site as a cesspool of racism. It's not accurate.

Are you aware that Dr. Roy Spencer is a creationist? Does that matter to you when judging his scientific credibility?

re: #21 kf

It is still important to expose the loons and the deniers. Unless this is done, vigorously and without mercy, the legitimate AGW sceptics are weakened by association.

re: #21 kf

Also ...

Monckton is not a particularly influential voice amongst those that have scientific doubts about climate change. For my part, I read Climate Audit...

Are you aware that Steve McIntyre frequently cites Monckton at Climate Audit?

re: #25 Charles

Are you aware that Dr. Roy Spencer is a creationist? Does that matter to you when judging his scientific credibility?

This is an ad hominem argument, and a fallacy. His (probably religious) belief in God creating the world has no bearing on his ability to analyze the atmosphere and temperature.

The Earth has usually been warmer that it is now anyway (read the Brittanica article on Climatic History) & that is another reason to think that the Earth might be going back to a more 'normal" state than it has recently been in.

I. e. that if there is doubt, then the warming side might make more sense.

re: #28 kf

This is an ad hominem argument, and a fallacy. His (probably religious) belief in God creating the world has no bearing on his ability to analyze the atmosphere and temperature.

How did I know that would be your answer?

So it's your position that Spencer's creationism has no bearing at all on his scientific credibility?

I think most people would disagree with that kind of assessment.

re: #28 kf

This is an ad hominem argument, and a fallacy. His (probably religious) belief in God creating the world has no bearing on his ability to analyze the atmosphere and temperature.

It means he doesn't believe in evolution. So stating that someone is a creationist is ad hominem???

re: #26 Bagua

It is still important to expose the loons and the deniers. Unless this is done, vigorously and without mercy, the legitimate AGW sceptics are weakened by association.

I take issue with the word denier. It's used precisely to invoke images of the Holocaust. I don't disagree that these people are idiots, but nobody of importance is paying attention to them. If you want to win over the hearts and minds of voters about climate change legislation, the information needs to be presented accurately and openly. Not the exaggerated way that, for instance, Gore and Hansen present the information.

re: #27 Charles

Also ...

Are you aware that Steve McIntyre frequently cites Monckton at Climate Audit?

No he doesn't.

re: #32 kf

No he doesn't.

Yes, he does.

re: #30 Charles

How did I know that would be your answer?

So it's your position that Spencer's creationism has no bearing at all on his scientific credibility?

I think most people would disagree with that kind of assessment.

Charles its a fallacy...what else would be my answer?

No I do not think it has any bearing on his scientific credibility. Additionally, it's pretty obvious to me that it is a religious decision, not a scientific one.

To put it more simply...if Einstein put out the theory of relativity and then murdered someone, you could not say that the theory of relativity is bunk because it was produced by a murderer. The two are separate events. You cannot disprove the entirety Roy Spencer's work by saying that he is a creationist.

Roy Spencer might end up being the key to the entire debate about climate models. The relationship between heightened levels of CO2 and atmospheric cloud cover is unknown, and SPECULATED by the climate models to have a positive correlation. Roy is working extensively on trying to figure out the exact relationship so that the climate models can be much more precise.

re: #32 kf

I take issue with the word denier. It's used precisely to invoke images of the Holocaust.

No, it is not. The word "denier" is a perfectly good English word that means someone "denies" the truth about something. It's not reserved exclusively for use with Holocaust deniers.

re: #34 kf

How old does Spencer believe the earth to be?

re: #34 kf

To put it more simply...if Einstein put out the theory of relativity and then murdered someone, you could not say that the theory of relativity is bunk because it was produced by a murderer.

That might be one of the worst analogies I've ever seen.

re: #33 Charles

Neither of those is posted by Steve, and in fact if you will click the first link, you will see that "John A" states clearly that Steve does not agree with Mockton.

I have no reason to lie you about this: Monckton is a fringe element and is of very, very little relevance in this debate.

re: #34 kf

A positive correlation in the sense of more Co2 equals more cloud cover?

That would tend to moderate temperatures by reflecting more sunlight back out into space.

re: #32 kf

I take issue with the word denier. It's used precisely to invoke images of the Holocaust.

I've never been comfortable with the term but it is in general use so I deal with it.

To me the "deniers" are the people who object to the science without cause, or with dishonesty. They are motivated by partisan politics or simply beliefs. I consider it important to distinguish them from sceptics who base their objection on reason and evidence.

re: #34 kf

Charles its a fallacy...what else would be my answer?

No I do not think it has any bearing on his scientific credibility. Additionally, it's pretty obvious to me that it is a religious decision, not a scientific one.

To put it more simply...if Einstein put out the theory of relativity and then murdered someone, you could not say that the theory of relativity is bunk because it was produced by a murderer. The two are separate events. You cannot disprove the entirety Roy Spencer's work by saying that he is a creationist.

Roy Spencer might end up being the key to the entire debate about climate models. The relationship between heightened levels of CO2 and atmospheric cloud cover is unknown, and SPECULATED by the climate models to have a positive correlation. Roy is working extensively on trying to figure out the exact relationship so that the climate models can be much more precise.

If Einstein put out a theory of relativity and then shot someone and then claimed that the person didn't die because he has a theory of why bullets don't kill people, then yeah, his credibility would be tainted. That's the equivalent. Not the way you stated it.

re: #38 kf

Neither of those is posted by Steve, and in fact if you will click the first link, you will see that "John A" states clearly that Steve does not agree with Mockton.

I have no reason to lie you about this: Monckton is a fringe element and is of very, very little relevance in this debate.

What do you mean, "neither of those?" My link to Google shows 80 results from McIntyre's site for "Monckton." There are a lot of posts defending him and citing his "work" at Climate Audit. If McIntyre doesn't agree with Monckton and really believes he's a "fringe" character, maybe he shouldn't allow so much praise for him at his site.

Climate change deniers ought to be referred to as 'flat earthers'.

re: #40 Bagua

I've never been comfortable with the term but it is in general use so I deal with it.

To me the "deniers" are the people who object to the science without cause, or with dishonesty. They are motivated by partisan politics or simply beliefs. I consider it important to distinguish them from sceptics who base their objection on reason and evidence.

still you are splitting hairs so you feel more comfortable with a definition...deniers are people who disbelieve, there is little reason to nuance it

re: #34 kf

Charles its a fallacy...what else would be my answer?

No I do not think it has any bearing on his scientific credibility. Additionally, it's pretty obvious to me that it is a religious decision, not a scientific one.

To put it more simply...if Einstein put out the theory of relativity and then murdered someone, you could not say that the theory of relativity is bunk because it was produced by a murderer. The two are separate events. You cannot disprove the entirety Roy Spencer's work by saying that he is a creationist.

Roy Spencer might end up being the key to the entire debate about climate models. The relationship between heightened levels of CO2 and atmospheric cloud cover is unknown, and SPECULATED by the climate models to have a positive correlation. Roy is working extensively on trying to figure out the exact relationship so that the climate models can be much more precise.

That's ridiculous. Spencer is not only a creationist, he's written articles supporting the teaching of "intelligent design" creationism in public school science classes. The kindest way to refer to someone who believes that kind of stuff is "kook." I prefer "charlatan" myself.

And to claim that a belief in creationism has no bearing on a person's scientific credibility is just ludicrous.

Just heard BNP leader Nick Griffiths ranting on BBC news about the "global warming conspiracy".

re: #46 Jimmah

Just heard BNP leader Nick Griffiths ranting on BBC news about the "global warming conspiracy".

Here he is:

EU Parliament - Nick Griffin MEP on Global Warming - NO to the New World Order (NWO)!

Sorry but the Youtube account hosting this is some BNP ass.

re: #35 Charles

No, it is not. The word "denier" is a perfectly good English word that means someone "denies" the truth about something. It's not reserved exclusively for use with Holocaust deniers.

Exactly, just like driving a Chevy Camarro SS isn't normally evocative of the Schutzstaffel. Such deliberately strained conflations in argument usually indicate to me that the opposite is true;

in this case meaning the term "denier" is both highly accurate and effective.

New world order!

A secular religious hysteria! - Nick Griffin

Sheesh.

re: #47 Gus 802

Here he is:

EU Parliament - Nick Griffin MEP on Global Warming - NO to the New World Order (NWO)!

[Video]Sorry but the Youtube account hosting this is some BNP ass.

just hitching his pony to another wagon...ho hum

Of course the BNP is jumping on the bandwagon -- that's what they do. They see that this has got the far right buzzing like angry bees, and they want some of that action.

re: #47 Gus 802

Nick Griffiths makes me glad I'm a Jew in America and not in the UK.

Though of course, here I have to deal with the terribly anti-Semitic ADL.

re: #39 Ojoe

A positive correlation in the sense of more Co2 equals more cloud cover?

That would tend to moderate temperatures by reflecting more sunlight back out into space.

My wording was imprecise. The correlation is positive in respect to the effect on temperature. The models believe that more carbon dioxide would lead to less cloud cover which would be a positive feedback.

We know what the direct effect of X amount of carbon diodixe into the atmosphere is (I believe a little more than 1 degrees C for 2100 based upon the projections by the IPCC). The uncertainty is how this extra carbon dioxide interacts with the rest of the environment. The effect on clouds is actually one of the most important feedbacks, and as the IPCC admits, contains quite a lot of uncertainty. Right now, all 15 of the models used by the IPCC have clouds being a strong positive feedback. Roy Spencer thinks this is in error, and that the feedback is closer to 0 or even negative.

To segue into another point, we already know that the climate models are off. There has been a statistically significant divergence between their predictions and the actual climate.

re: #51 Charles

Of course the BNP is jumping on the bandwagon -- that's what they do. They see that this has got the far right buzzing like angry bees, and they want some of that action.

After you posted #11, I figured Monckton might even be a BNP supporter.

re: #53 kf

How old does Spencer believe the earth to be?

And the atmosphere, for that matter?

re: #46 Jimmah

Just heard BNP leader Nick Griffiths ranting on BBC news about the "global warming conspiracy".

They let Nick speak on the BBC news now?

Yo, M'Lord -

Alex Jones is NOT the place to be. Too Many Axes, Too Much Grinding. That is all. -S-

re: #53 kf

Roy Spencer thinks this is in error, and that the feedback is closer to 0 or even negative.

Roy Spencer also believes that the theory of evolution is in error.

Not a single credible scientist agrees with Spencer's bizarre CO2 theory.

re: #52 Obdicut

Nick Griffiths makes me glad I'm a Jew in America and not in the UK.

Though of course, here I have to deal with the terribly anti-Semitic ADL.

He is a fringe character at best, hardly representative on the British people. There are as many far right wackos in the US what with the KKK et. al.

I feel really uncomfortable continuing this, as you guys seem completely closed to an alternate opinion on this. I actually feel like I did when I would drop links to LGF. People would just pile on to me without wanting to actually understand the point. What? He is posting something in favor of Israel? Must be a conservative moron. And he is linking to LGF? Racist conservative moron!!!

If anyone wants to discuss anything, I'm open to pointing you to relevant information. Checking the "Show email" box. I would just reiterate again that you should give Steve, Lucia, Roger, and Roy a shot. They are excellent blogs for people interested in both sides of this debate. There IS a scientific, sane side on both sides of the debate.

re: #28 kf

This is an ad hominem argument, and a fallacy. His (probably religious) belief in God creating the world has no bearing on his ability to analyze the atmosphere and temperature.

No, it isn't. It is not possible to maintain a creationist position if one is acquainted with the known facts about the history of this planet and its life. Anyone who claims to do so is being dishonest at least with himself. By his creationism he has shown that his scientific judgement is capable of being grossly compromised by his beliefs.

re: #60 kf

That you keep referring to a creationist as both scientific and sane is absolutely ludicrous.

You can't even answer the simple question, "How old does Spencer believe the earth to be?"

re: #62 Obdicut

That you keep referring to a creationist as both scientific and sane is absolutely ludicrous.

You can't even answer the simple question, "How old does Spencer believe the earth to be?"

kf doesn't even see how it's relevant. Stunning.

re: #60 kf

*Hands kf another shovel*

re: #60 kf

As for Roger Pielke, here's a good sampling of his reputation in the scientific community; just pick any link and start reading:

[Link: www.google.com...]

re: #56 Bagua

They let Nick speak on the BBC news now?

They just reported his words. They did of course let him on 'Question Time' a few weeks ago. Didn't go too well for him.

Saying a scientist that believes in creationism and doesn't believe in evolution is sane and credible is akin to saying that a doctor who believes in bloodletting is sane and credible. Are you going to go to that doctor when you're sick? I don't think so.

re: #21 kf

Your "scientist' Roy Spencer is a religious liar, who also fully supports ID. Nice try, but he's as limited in credibility as Phil Johnson is.

re: #60 kf

We are open to facts, we are not open to denialist fantasy. Bring some facts and we will talk.

re: #68 Thanos

Your "scientist' Roy Spencer is a religious liar, who also fully supports ID. Nice try, but he's as limited in credibility as Phil Johnson is.

I'm waiting for the sock puppet That's Dr. Michael Behe to you.

re: #60 kf

What's with the LGF analogies? You're starting to sound like an accidental moby.

re: #70 Sharmuta

I'm waiting for the sock puppet That's Dr. Michael Behe to you.

Puppets! Puppets!
(This was a big hit at Thanksgiving.)

re: #60 kf

I have given them a shot, they are idiots and agitprop artists.

re: #72 EmmmieG

I love it.

re: #60 kf

I feel really uncomfortable continuing this, as you guys seem completely closed to an alternate opinion on this. I actually feel like I did when I would drop links to LGF. People would just pile on to me without wanting to actually understand the point. What? He is posting something in favor of Israel? Must be a conservative moron. And he is linking to LGF? Racist conservative moron!!!

Where you posting those links on stormfront or something??

re: #75 recusancy

Where you posting those links on stormfront or something??

He's not so deftly implying that LGF has made a left turn.

re: #71 Gus 802

What's with the LGF analogies? You're starting to sound like an accidental moby.

I have a bad feeling about what his definition of "supporting Israel" might be.

re: #76 Varek Raith

He's not so deftly implying that LGF has made a left turn.

And that the other sites he posts at are infested with anti-semites.

You can continue to try and trivilaise and marginalise the outcomes associated with this leak.

We know, as you have already stated, have made up your mind. But Charles- flexibility is the sign of a powerful intellect.

And whilst you may feel brighter than some and wiser than me, I ask how do you process this sort of comment by someone demonstrably more clever than either of us...

Part of what he said:

"The UN’s Copenhagen summit is about raw politics, not about the politics of science… It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.
It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 (fifth report) but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive."

By none other than Professor Mike Hulme who is of the University of East Anglia from which the emails were leaked, and is named by ScienceWatch as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change, between 1999 and 2009”.

[Link: wattsupwiththat.com...]

re: #79 yakabebe

SPAM

re: #78 wrenchwench

And that the other sites he posts at are infested with anti-semites.

Indeed. Just look who he turns to for 'science'.

re: #79 yakabebe

Methinks you are the one who has made up his mind on this issue.

re: #80 Gus 802

SPAM

is he talking to you?...who's he talking too?

re: #78 wrenchwench

And that the other sites he posts at are infested with anti-semites.

Perhaps with the left turn and anti-Semitism, he's calling us koslings? Isn't that the new, big smear? LGF is like kos?

Hi Lizards,

Some news from down under.

Seems when the right gets it right it implodes.

SNIP

Malcolm Turnbull's future will be decided by his colleagues next Tuesday morning when the party will meet to consider a push led by Tony Abbott to hold a leadership spill.

The party is in crisis after mass resignations yesterday in protest against Mr Turnbull's decision to back the Government's emissions trading scheme (ETS).

There has been 10 resignation from the right over this, it will cost him his job come Tuesday, a sad state of affairs.

Liberal = Conservative in Oz

re: #82 albusteve

is he talking to you?...who's he talking too?

Probably to the Spam Angels. Or something. Usually he winds up posting in dead threads.

re: #83 Sharmuta

Perhaps with the left turn and anti-Semitism, he's calling us koslings? Isn't that the new, big smear? LGF is like kos?

I wear my cool Anti-Smear Armor...stuff just bounces off

re: #79 yakabebe

The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.

This echoes another creationist complaint. "Scientists are being mean to us."

re: #85 Gus 802

Probably to the Spam Angels. Or something. Usually he winds up posting in dead threads.

oh well, to each his own

re: #83 Sharmuta

Perhaps with the left turn and anti-Semitism, he's calling us koslings? Isn't that the new, big smear? LGF is like kos?

I'm a Kosite. I must be the worst of the worst. I'm a polytheist worshipping the green and orange.

re: #87 jaunte

This echoes another creationist complaint. "Scientists are being mean to us."

Creationist Martyr Cookies™

They only come in banana flavor.

re: #65 Charles

As for Roger Pielke, here's a good sampling of his reputation in the scientific community; just pick any link and start reading:

[Link: www.google.com...]

What am I supposed to garner from this? Why do you just post Google searches without linking to relevant information?

Here's what I usually encounter when trying to debate people who are so heavily entrenched in their belief of catastrophic global warming that they need to insult the man rather than the message:

-Roy Spencer is a creationist so he can't have any say in any debate about science.
-Steve McIntyre used to work for a mineral company. He is owned by big oil.

They ignore the fact that both of these people have been involved with the IPCC, including their work being cited. They have no interest in reading anything that they say because they "know" they are "tainted" yet the IPCC has an interest in reading their work. Whose logic is flawed here...?

If you will explain to me the following:

1) What of the divergence in the dendro reconstructions during the mid-20th century?
2) Why do paleoclimate scientists go to such great lengths to deny access to data (Briffa, Mann)?
3) Why when granted access to data, are there such gaping holes in the science such as in the bogus methodology in MBH98 and the non-random sampling of Yamal?
4) Why does Phil Jones continue to deny access to the raw data for the instrumental record?
5) Why are the models so far off since the SRES scenarios began (Jan/01)?
6) Why isn't the sea level rise accelerating as predicted?
7) What is the relationship between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global cloud cover?
8) How much of the ~.7C rise in temperatures since 1900 has been due to humanity? How much due to natural variability? How much is due to humanity changing the surface of the Earth (deforestation: albedo, carbon cycle) and how much due to the emission of greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide?
9) What is the exact relationship between sunspot activity and climate (i.e. right now we're at a minimum in solar activity, is this why temperatures haven't risen in the past few years?)? Is there one? What about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation? Is there a relationship? Are these two facets accounted for in the models? Is LCC accounted for in the models?

These are scientific questions, off the top of my head, and there are more. I am not a denier here. I do not disbelieve that we are emitting CO2, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that we have contributed to the warming of our planet. What is at issue here is where the temperature is going. To know this we need to have a firm grasp on climate reconstructions, on climate modeling, and on the instrumental record. I do not believe we have a firm grasp on any of the 3. So when we transition from the science aspect to the political aspect, it becomes all the more murkier. Do we adapt or do we mitigate? Will China and India reduce emissions? Etc.

re: #79 yakabebe

We know, as you have already stated, have made up your mind. But Charles- flexibility is the sign of a powerful intellect.

Then my intellect must be mighty indeed, because the fact is that I've CHANGED my opinion on global warming, after a determined effort to educate myself on the scientific issues involved. I used to be an unthinking skeptic like you, inflexible and dogmatic, believing the propaganda I was fed by deniers.

But then I took the initiative to actually learn things, on my own, without being filtered through people with deceptive agendas.

Flexibility really is a wonderful thing.

re: #79 yakabebe

We know, as you have already stated, have made up your mind.

After he followed the scientific evidence.

re: #91 kf

Everyone, meet the proverbial brick wall.
/gaze

re: #90 Gus 802

Apeeling to the emotions!

re: #89 recusancy

I'm a Kosite. I must be the worst of the worst. I'm a polytheist worshipping the green and orange.

Green is where it's at. You know deep down you want to ditch the orange... ;)

re: #26 Bagua

It is still important to expose the loons and the deniers. Unless this is done, vigorously and without mercy, the legitimate AGW sceptics are weakened by association.

Falsication Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects
Within The Frame Of Physics

re: #94 Varek Raith

Everyone, meet the proverbial brick wall.
/gaze

speak for yourself...he can post whatever he wants to, right, wrong or otherwise...you do what you want, you don't need any support to ignore somebody

re: #53 kf

One would think that C02, if warming the earth, would increase evaporation off the ocean enough to increase the moisture in the air & thus clouds, if the air were not also so much warmer as to hold that extra moisture without forming clouds.

But maybe not.

What a complicated problem.

re: #92 Charles

Then my intellect must be mighty indeed, because the fact is that I've CHANGED my opinion on global warming, after a determined effort to educate myself on the scientific issues involved. I used to be an unthinking skeptic like you, inflexible and dogmatic, believing the propaganda I was fed by deniers.

But then I took the initiative to actually learn things, on my own, without being filtered through people with deceptive agendas.

Flexibility really is a wonderful thing.

Nice repartee...but now try and address the real point of my question

Surely...SURELY...you agree with this fellow about the cliqueness (?) tribalism and now the perhaps irrelevancy of the IPCC???

re: #100 yakabebe

Nice repartee...but now try and address the real point of my question

Surely...SURELY...you agree with this fellow about the cliqueness (?) tribalism and now the perhaps irrelevancy of the IPCC???

Almost as cliquish as those damned Darwinists. [eye roll]

re: #97 zuckerlilly

Falsication Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects
Within The Frame Of Physics

Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect

Take that! ;)

re: #102 Gus 802

Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect

Take that! ;)

Well this is what else I found:

Re: Physicist Falsifies GH gas theory
Neither one of them has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Locked pending moderation.

re: #100 yakabebe

Nice repartee...but now try and address the real point of my question

Surely...SURELY...you agree with this fellow about the cliqueness (?) tribalism and now the perhaps irrelevancy of the IPCC???

The cliquieness and tribalism of an organization is a side effect to an organization under constant attack. The fact that they have, over time, not adapted well to the political atmosphere that has surrounded them, does not change that fact that their science is correct. They aren't politicians. They're scientists. They don't know how to do politics well but they do know how to do science.

My little contribution to the debate on creatinistic beliefs and the purported (I believe nonsensical) notion that that precludes one from being a "real" scientist

Seems many here are of the nouveau intelligentsia that suggests what we know now is the measure of what is REAL knowledge and that IT is true, correct and what really matters. Sort of like a "temporal" narcissism.

Got this a moment's search. I'd bet there are heaps of more up-to-date table available. Some real dead-set morons in there. hey?

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

re: #98 albusteve

speak for yourself...he can post whatever he wants to, right, wrong or otherwise...you do what you want, you don't need any support to ignore somebody

Wasn't asking for support, nor would I want it. It's obvious he has no desire to enlighten himself on this issue and continues the same tired anti-agw tropes. I was merely posting my opinion. Just doing what I want, as per your suggestion. ;)

re: #105 yakabebe

For crying out loud.

re: #104 recusancy

The funny thing is that if there were worse scientists, and better politicians, people would think they were better scientists, because they'd be better defended against denier propaganda.

re: #108 Obdicut

The funny thing is that if there were worse scientists, and better politicians, people would think they were better scientists, because they'd be better defended against denier propaganda.

Exactly. Catch 22.

re: #89 recusancy

I'm a Kosite. I must be the worst of the worst. I'm a polytheist worshipping the green and orange.

I'm there with you, a foot in both worlds.

re: #105 yakabebe

creatinistic beliefs

Heh.

re: #105 yakabebe

Congratulations on the most inane and stupid argument yet.

re: #105 yakabebe

You cannot be seriously claiming scientists from before the theory of evolution was even introduced as creationists, can you?

re: #111 wrenchwench

Heh.

I almost thought it said cretinistic beliefs.

re: #105 yakabebe

Dude, just say that everyone pre-Darwin was a creationist and have done with totally misusing the term.

It's a word that only makes sense in the context of modern science.

re: #105 yakabebe

My little contribution to the debate on creatinistic beliefs and the purported (I believe nonsensical) notion that that precludes one from being a "real" scientist

Seems many here are of the nouveau intelligentsia that suggests what we know now is the measure of what is REAL knowledge and that IT is true, correct and what really matters. Sort of like a "temporal" narcissism.

Got this a moment's search. I'd bet there are heaps of more up-to-date table available. Some real dead-set morons in there. hey?

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

Thank you for posting such a great list of great men. May I point out, however, that many of these men lived at a time when it was not politically wise (or even dangerous to their health) to profess a belief against what the church (whichever church it was in their land) stated to be the truth?

You have no idea what they actually believed.

re: #115 Obdicut

It's right up there in the creationist playbook alongside "it's only a theory" and "hitler!".

have we invaded Cuba yet?

re: #105 yakabebe

Religious beliefs have nothing to do with legitimate science.

None of the figures you mentioned claimed to have derived their scientific advances from their religious beliefs.

re: #105 yakabebe

So it's been over a hundred years since a creationist has contributed anything to scientific knowledge. That should tell you something.

re: #118 windhorse

(wasn't Texas A&M going to do that this year?)

I guess what the objectors to my list fail to get is that beneath the notions of creatiosnsm, darwinism, "lntelligent design", survival-of-the-fittest - call it what you may - is a dichotomy along the lines generally of believing in the bible or not.

For the record, I dont believe in the bible. I am a believer of evolution

But to suggest that BECAUSE someone believes in the Bible and hence might also not believe in Darwinism or evolution and that THEREFORE this and this alone precludes him from being a scientist and capable of adding to our body of knowledge is an utter nonsense

Shame you cant see this

back then...

re: #116 EmmmieG

Thank you for posting such a great list of great men. May I point out, however, that many of these men lived at a time when it was not politically wise (or even dangerous to their health) to profess a belief against what the church (whichever church it was in their land) stated to be the truth?

You have no idea what they actually believed.

Interestingly enough. Carl Linnaeus had some wild ideas. There is the following noted at Wiki:

Linnaeus' scientific research took science on a path that diverged from what had been taught by religious authorities. The Lutheran Archbishop of Uppsala had accused him of "impiety." In a letter to Johann Georg Gmelin dated February 25, 1747, Linnaeus wrote:

It does not please (you) that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.

And for Cato:

Non placet, quod Hominem inter ant[h]ropomorpha collocaverim, sed homo noscit se ipsum. Removeamus vocabula. Mihi perinde erit, quo nomine utamur. Sed quaero a Te et Toto orbe differentiam genericam inter hominem et Simiam, quae ex principiis Historiae naturalis. Ego certissime nullam novi. Utinam aliquis mihi unicam diceret! Si vocassem hominem simiam vel vice versa omnes in me conjecissem theologos. Debuissem forte ex lege artis.

Daily Fail contributer Melanie Phillips: "Global warming is a 'scam'"

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

re: #119 researchok

Religious beliefs have nothing to do with legitimate science.

None of the figures you mentioned claimed to have derived their scientific advances from their religious beliefs.

That's how he wants you to respond. Then he can say you shouldn't condemn Spencer for religious beliefs as well. But the point against that is that Spencer is in an age where evolution is no longer a crack pot theory. It is the basis for all biological sciences.

re: #125 Jimmah

Daily Fail contributer Melanie Phillips: "Global warming is a 'scam'"

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

Another one. Creationist that is.

re: #122 yakabebe

But to suggest that BECAUSE someone believes in the Bible and hence might also not believe in Darwinism or evolution and that THEREFORE this and this alone precludes him from being a scientist and capable of adding to our body of knowledge is an utter nonsense

How old does Spencer believe the earth to be?

re: #43 researchok

Climate change deniers ought to be referred to as 'flat earthers'.

I'm not against Climate Change. I don't deny that it occurs. I do seriously doubt that humans, even with the dedication of every man woman and child on the face of the earth can bend nature to our collective will to that extent --preventing Climate Change. I do have serious concerns about the motives of those who would insist on such levels of dedication, and those who would choose such a ridiculous phrase and promote it as being the most important issue ever. It does not lead to clear thinking.

Are you in favor of Climate Change, or opposed to it ? This is not a sensible question, IHMO.

Anyone recall the prayer of St Francis of Assisi? (BTW, referencing some words of a man of the cloth does not make me a deist. I am not a deist, nor a flat earther.)

re: #123 albusteve

That, sir, is the most ground-breaking historical documentary series ever!

re: #126 recusancy

That's how he wants you to respond. Then he can say you shouldn't condemn Spencer for religious beliefs as well. But the point against that is that Spencer is in an age where evolution is no longer a crack pot theory. It is the basis for all biological sciences.

Ha! As I wrote. See #122

re: #122 yakabebe

I guess what the objectors to my list fail to get is that beneath the notions of creatiosnsm, darwinism, "lntelligent design", survival-of-the-fittest - call it what you may - is a dichotomy along the lines generally of believing in the bible or not.

For the record, I dont believe in the bible. I am a believer of evolution

But to suggest that BECAUSE someone believes in the Bible and hence might also not believe in Darwinism or evolution and that THEREFORE this and this alone precludes him from being a scientist and capable of adding to our body of knowledge is an utter nonsense

Shame you cant see this

sounds like the perfect example of cognitive dissonance to me

Richard Lindzen is pretty much the only skeptic/denier that I listen too, and he's pretty sharp. I highly recommend the following video series on youtube:

re: #122 yakabebe

But to suggest that BECAUSE someone believes in the Bible and hence might also not believe in Darwinism or evolution and that THEREFORE this and this alone precludes him from being a scientist and capable of adding to our body of knowledge is an utter nonsense

Yes the fact that someones fantastical religious beliefs trump everything that the scientific world has revealed on this huge issue shouldn't raise any doubts about their ability to think clearly, dispassionately and honestly about scientific issues.///

re: #126 recusancy

That's how he wants you to respond. Then he can say you shouldn't condemn Spencer for religious beliefs as well. But the point against that is that Spencer is in an age where evolution is no longer a crack pot theory. It is the basis for all biological sciences.

It isn't news that there are plenty of scientists who are believers.

That said, the vast majority of them do not use their beliefs to predetermine their science. For them, scientific truths only strengthen their faiths.

Evolution is a scientific reality, period. For believers (myself included) evolution only serves to highlight the grandeur of creation.

My faith does not require me to redefine what is and isn't scientific truth.

re: #115 Obdicut

Dude, just say that everyone pre-Darwin was a creationist and have done with totally misusing the term.

It's a word that only makes sense in the context of modern science.

One might as well post a list of illustrious scientists from the past who pursued alchemy.

Roy Spencer has stated that it took him only two years of study to conclude that intelligent design was just as scientific as evolutionary theory. Two years to review millions of man-hours of original research. This alone should cast grave doubts not only on his ability as a scientist, but his ability to tell the truth.

On the subject of Intelligent design, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.[Link: www.tcsdaily.com...]

re: #135 researchok

It isn't news that there are plenty of scientists who are believers.

That said, the vast majority of them do not use their beliefs to predetermine their science. For them, scientific truths only strengthen their faiths.

Evolution is a scientific reality, period. For believers (myself included) evolution only serves to highlight the grandeur of creation.

My faith does not require me to redefine what is and isn't scientific truth.

right...but the question is, are creationists fundamentally flawed as scientists?...I vote yes

re: #133 carnaby

What is LIndzen's argument these days? I know he had to abandon his tropospheric heating/cooling thingy after it was empirically disproven.

What has he cast about and found now?

And after yet another moments search we have below a list of modern scientists who are also creationist

and yet somehow their finding and research are relevant, insightful, important, ground-breaking, additive in meaningful ways to the body if science and indicative of scientific process

How can that be...(scratching his head...)

Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Damadian was passed over for a Nobel prize (2003) for the discovery and development of MRI. When you have an MRI scan done, all you evolutionists can thank creationist Damadian for his pioneering research. :-)
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, astrophysics, geophysics. An expert in supercomputer modelling of plate tectonics. His model is used by others in the field.
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist. Jones was responsible for finding out why cattle in Australia could not digest Leucaena, a legume valuable as an animal food in tropical countries, but found to be useless in Australia.
John Mann, M.B.E. John Mann had no academic qualifications, but was elected a Fellow of the Royal Zoological Society and awarded an MBE for his research into the prickly pear (weed) problem that had rendered useless huge tracts of agricultural land in Queensland and NSW. It was one of the first and probably the most spectacularly successful ever examples of biological control. 
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry. identified, characterized and synthesized the structure of numerous food, bacterial, and biological components and has published 128 refereed papers and numerous abstracts and book chapters. He was one of the core scientists who evaluated the toxicological, nutritional and biochemical properties of canola oil and demonstrated its safety.
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist; top AIDS researcher. Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO's top prize, the Chairman's Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology's top award, for outstanding contributions to research. 
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist. Dr Matthews has an international reputation in the field of photocatalysis. He has authored or co-authored approximately 70 refereed research papers and book articles in the open scientific literature, and holds several patents.
Prof. Andy McIntosh D.Sc., Combustion theory, aerodynamics (note that this is the British professorship, which means the highest academic rank)
Dr Eric Norman, biomedical researcher. A pioneer of vitamin B12 research.
Denis Burkitt, epidemiology. Found the cause of Burkitt's lymphoma and was primarily responsible for the appreciation of the need for more fibre in western diets.
Dr John Hartnett, physics, cosmology. Research: Frequency Standards and Metrology. The research, for the European Space Agency's PHARAO atomic clock project, involves the development of an ultra-stable microwave oscillator based on a sapphire resonator cooled to 50 K with solid nitrogen. His research interests include ultra low-noise radar, ultra high stability microwave clocks, tests of fundamental theories of physics such as Special and General Relativity and measurement of drift in fundamental constants and their cosmological implications. He has published more than 40 papers in refereed scientific journals
Dr Emil Silvestru. Geologist/karstologist, who was he was the head scientist at the world's first speleological institute
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist. Chair of Zoology, Uni of Western Cape, South Africa. 

re: #137 jaunte

Roy Spencer has stated that it took him only two years of study to conclude that intelligent design was just as scientific as evolutionary theory. Two years to review millions of man-hours of original research. This alone should cast grave doubts not only on his ability as a scientist, but his ability to tell the truth.

the Evelyn Woods Miracle...I've heard of this before somewhere

re: #105 yakabebe

You've provided us with a beautiful example of the convergence of climate deniers and creationists! Thank you so much.

re: #140 yakabebe

What is this Answers in Genesis?

re: #140 yakabebe

You are erecting a rather elaborate strawman.

I usually only lurk around two internetz that are halfway srs bzns. Those are

forums.randi.org
and
littlegreenfootballs.com

99.9999% of what I know of Alex Jones indicates that he is to conspiracy kooks what Benny Hinn is to religious kooks: a charlatan who probably doesn't believe a single word of his own spew, but who is nevertheless laughing all the way to the bank.

However, I recognize that LGF is home to lots of people who think very differently from me, and for that I am grateful.

In that spirit, I really really really want to know: ARE THERE any venues of public discourse wherein Alex Jones is portrayed as being a legitimate source of the non-crazy? (I know of his appearances on various Fox News Channels shows, but that venue is lost to me) Are there actual non-crazy persons out there who hear his rants and think he might actually be ONTO SOMETHING? How do they feel about his earlier assertions that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by Bush/Cheney and/or "The Jews"?

I[m going to go investigate this for myself now, but I definitely want to hear everyone's disseration on the subject.

re: #138 albusteve

So what your then saying is that any findings by such a man/woman is suspect and not to be relied upon

off you go - you have alot of work to do to get their contributions removed from the body of science and see how that goes.

re: #140 yakabebe

Could you please at least have the decency to link to propaganda like that, rather than turding it out all over the thread?

Can you tell me how old Spenser believes the earth, and the earth's atmosphere, to be?

re: #140 yakabebe

Quote mining
/busted

Do I smell quote mines in here? Where are the deniers quote mines located?

re: #149 wrenchwench

Do I smell quote mines in here? Where are the deniers quote mines located?

Absolutely. It's classic quote mining. We used to see this a lot at LGF from creationists, and now we're seeing it from the global warming deniers.

re: #139 Obdicut

What is LIndzen's argument these days? I know he had to abandon his tropospheric heating/cooling thingy after it was empirically disproven.

What has he cast about and found now?

I just watched that video. It seems to be all about process and supposed left wing propaganda rather then actual science. There was even a reference to Goebbels. So, Godwin law and all.

re: #145 negativ

I type like ASS. Ignore my typos, or pay The Penalty.

re: #129 abolitionist

I'm not against Climate Change. I don't deny that it occurs. I do seriously doubt that humans, even with the dedication of every man woman and child on the face of the earth can bend nature to our collective will to that extent --preventing Climate Change. I do have serious concerns about the motives of those who would insist on such levels of dedication, and those who would choose such a ridiculous phrase and promote it as being the most important issue ever. It does not lead to clear thinking.

Are you in favor of Climate Change, or opposed to it ? This is not a sensible question, IHMO.

Anyone recall the prayer of St Francis of Assisi? (BTW, referencing some words of a man of the cloth does not make me a deist. I am not a deist, nor a flat earther.)

We know various kinds of man made pollutions are injurious to man.

We know acid rain is harmful and we know buried toxic materials can be hazardous for decades.

Climate warming is real. A look at the changes of American, Canadian and European agricultural grow maps over the past century highlight changing climactic zones.

Denying climate change is absurd. Denying man made contributions to climate change is equally absurd. While there may be other natural influences contributing to global warming, there is little question we have done our share, not out of malice but out of ignorance.

Fortunately, we now know better.

re: #151 recusancy

I just watched that video. It seems to be all about process and supposed left wing propaganda rather then actual science. There was even a reference to Goebbels. So, Godwin law and all.

Thanks for bothering, so I don't have to.

I hadn't heard that he'd invented any new argument since his tropospheric one fell flat; I guess he hasn't invented any new scientific argument, and is going for a political one, instead.

re: #146 yakabebe

So what your then saying is that any findings by such a man/woman is suspect and not to be relied upon

off you go - you have alot of work to do to get their contributions removed from the body of science and see how that goes.

no, I'm saying they do not or cannot reconcile the Earth being 6000 years old and then explain the volcanism and surface erosion in New Mexico...the two are simply incompatible, but they live with it...how else can you explain it?

Wow. I just took a quick drive to the store for some staples (i.e. beer) and turned on the radio to hear Tim Conway Jr. regurgitating every single right wing talking point about the CRU emails -- including the points that have been completely debunked, like the story about the BBC getting a copy a month ago (they didn't).

This is what's stirring up the idiots -- there are talk show hosts and websites that could not possibly care less about telling the truth or fact checking anything. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

Regardless where the source may derive, the facts of some of these men's accomplishments are real and that you simply dismiss them as a product of "quote mining" says much more about your mindset than anything else.

If you can show how what is posted is untrue or nonfactual then i'll listen till then phhhttt

re: #157 yakabebe

Regardless where the source may derive, the facts of some of these men's accomplishments are real and that you simply dismiss them as a product of "quote mining" says much more about your mindset than anything else.

If you can show how what is posted is untrue or nonfactual then i'll listen till then phhhttt

Checkout;

re: #148 Killgore Trout

Quote mining
/busted

re: #146 yakabebe

So what your then saying is that any findings by such a man/woman is suspect and not to be relied upon

off you go - you have alot of work to do to get their contributions removed from the body of science and see how that goes.

LOL
you realize you wouldn't pass my 7th grade catholic science class right?
Bring it..Let's talk science..This should be fun...

re: #138 albusteve

right...but the question is, are creationists fundamentally flawed as scientists?...I vote yes

I agree.

Creationists by definition, turn a blind eye to much scientific reality. Real believers on the hand, embrace scientific truth as a part of their faith and understanding of the magnitude of Creation.

re: #156 Charles

What kind of beer?

Dorf on Climate Change?

re: #157 yakabebe

Their achievements weren't dismissed as quote mining.

That you were presenting someone else's words as your own, was.

Why can't you answer the simple question:

How old does Spencer believe the earth to be?

re: #148 Killgore Trout

Quote mining
/busted

Yep. It came straight from a loony creationist website. You can't trust any of that, by the way. These people often include scientists on their silly lists that aren't creationists. And don't waste your time tracking down every person listed. That's what they want you to do -- it's the whole point of dumping a big turd like that, to get you to run all over the place checking it out.

re: #157 yakabebe

Regardless where the source may derive, the facts of some of these men's accomplishments are real and that you simply dismiss them as a product of "quote mining" says much more about your mindset than anything else.

If you can show how what is posted is untrue or nonfactual then i'll listen till then phhhttt

That list is not relevant. Many scientists can be talented and productive in one field, and incompetent in another. Those that deny the validity of a well-established field like evolutionary biology are probably not to be relied on when they get outside their field of expertise.

Will this harm Monckton’s credibility in the climate denial industry? Of course not! It’s not about credibility — it’s about noise.

Monckton is a Brit, with title yet. What does he know about this Jones guy? (I'm being kind here).

However what I really wanted to say was that I saw Ben Stein last night, on CNN or something, on this subject.

It has been a long time since I wanted to hit the TV screen and break someones face, but I did to that effing liar, or nutcase, or both. Needless to say, the interviewer (I forget who. No, it wasn't Larry King) was as smart as a bump on a log.

re: #165 Naso Tang

Monckton is a Brit, with title yet. What does he know about this Jones guy? (I'm being kind here).

However what I really wanted to say was that I saw Ben Stein last night, on CNN or something, on this subject.

It has been a long time since I wanted to hit the TV screen and break someones face, but I did to that effing liar, or nutcase, or both. Needless to say, the interviewer (I forget who. No, it wasn't Larry King) was as smart as a bump on a log.

Was that the one with Carville as an opposing guest?

re: #164 jaunte

That list is not relevant. Many scientists can be talented and productive in one field, and incompetent in another. Those that deny the validity of a well-established field like evolutionary biology are probably not to be relied on when they get outside their field of expertise.

Once more. Don't fall into their trap. See my #126

re: #157 yakabebe

Regardless where the source may derive, the facts of some of these men's accomplishments are real and that you simply dismiss them as a product of "quote mining" says much more about your mindset than anything else.

If you can show how what is posted is untrue or nonfactual then i'll listen till then phhhttt

You wouldn't recognize it if one did, since one has.

re: #166 Varek Raith

Was that the one with Carville as an opposing guest?

Yes, and I never saw Carville so polite. I thought steam was going to come out his ears.

Point taken re quote mining - yes it wasnt my work - i didnt say it was but referred to a "moments" search

And whilst you may chose to debunk the info so gained, there's no evidence that the men on that list (and I suggest it is probably simply representative of a large body of people) didnt contribute as scientists DESPITE their creatinistic beliefs.

How can someone sit there and truely believe that because someone holds a view of creationism that somehow he is then incapable of say discovering some sort of inorganic chemical theory, or a new mathematical solution or a new electrical engineering concept or in any other and varied disciplines???

re: #165 Naso Tang

Monckton is a Brit, with title yet. What does he know about this Jones guy? (I'm being kind here).

However what I really wanted to say was that I saw Ben Stein last night, on CNN or something, on this subject.

It has been a long time since I wanted to hit the TV screen and break someones face, but I did to that effing liar, or nutcase, or both. Needless to say, the interviewer (I forget who. No, it wasn't Larry King) was as smart as a bump on a log.

They all are. All the talk show hosts know politics and that's it. If a conversation strays into the realm of policy or substance they have zero clue whether the person they are interviewing is telling the truth or not. So they just pretend and nod and smile. Like when Chris Matthews interviewed Tencredo about creationism. It was downright embarrasing.

creationism defies all reason...there is really no point in arguing any aspect of it, including scientists that believe the Earth is so young, put here intact by God...now that's denial

re: #170 yakabebe

Can you tell me how old Spencer believes the earth, and earth's atmosphere is?

Or is there some reason you're dodging that question?

re: #164 jaunte"That list is not relevant. Many scientists can be talented and productive in one field, and incompetent in another. Those that deny the validity of a well-established field like evolutionary biology are probably not to be relied on when they get outside their field of expertise."

Ahhh...now this i can accept to a greater extent.

So is climatology and atmospheric science really to be considered off limits to them?

re: #170 yakabebe

Point taken re quote mining - yes it wasnt my work - i didnt say it was but referred to a "moments" search

And whilst you may chose to debunk the info so gained, there's no evidence that the men on that list (and I suggest it is probably simply representative of a large body of people) didnt contribute as scientists DESPITE their creatinistic beliefs.

How can someone sit there and truely believe that because someone holds a view of creationism that somehow he is then incapable of say discovering some sort of inorganic chemical theory, or a new mathematical solution or a new electrical engineering concept or in any other and varied disciplines???

because they do not believe what they say the believe...it's impossible

re: #170 yakabebe

How can someone sit there and truely believe that because someone holds a view of creationism that somehow he is then incapable of say discovering some sort of inorganic chemical theory, or a new mathematical solution or a new electrical engineering concept or in any other and varied disciplines???

It is theoretically possible. Cognitive Dissonance can sometimes be applied selectively, like on Sundays only; but if one can't recognize one fundamental reality would only be likely to recognize another by accident.

re: #170 yakabebe

DESPITE their creatinistic beliefs.

And again I go, "Heh."

re: #174 yakabebe

"That list is not relevant. Many scientists can be talented and productive in one field, and incompetent in another. Those that deny the validity of a well-established field like evolutionary biology are probably not to be relied on when they get outside their field of expertise."

Ahhh...now this i can accept to a greater extent.

So is climatology and atmospheric science really to be considered off limits to them?

science isn't off limits to them, creationism is

re: #177 wrenchwench

And again I go, "Heh."

Hey! Just because someone is a cretin doesn't mean they can't also be a brilliant genius scientist!

re: #164 jaunte

That list is not relevant. Many scientists can be talented and productive in one field, and incompetent in another. Those that deny the validity of a well-established field like evolutionary biology are probably not to be relied on when they get outside their field of expertise.

Also, creationism in a modern day scientist demonstrates that for them, science takes a back seat to beliefs (outrageously silly ones at that) where they are in conflict. I've been noting for a while that AGW conflicts with the (dominionist) belief that God made the world perfect for man to exploit with abandon.

re: #170 yakabebe

Point taken re quote mining - yes it wasnt my work - i didnt say it was but referred to a "moments" search

And whilst you may chose to debunk the info so gained, there's no evidence that the men on that list (and I suggest it is probably simply representative of a large body of people) didnt contribute as scientists DESPITE their creatinistic beliefs.

How can someone sit there and truely believe that because someone holds a view of creationism that somehow he is then incapable of say discovering some sort of inorganic chemical theory, or a new mathematical solution or a new electrical engineering concept or in any other and varied disciplines???

OMG...Are you talking to us from the 1500's? A person that accepts geology being 6000 years old isn't bringing mankind a new mathematical solution to anything.. What are you doing? going all Forrest Gump on us?
jeez

re: #174 yakabebe

Did you read that quote that I posted above? Roy Spencer (to name someone specific) dismissed all the work of evolutionary biology and put it on par with the sophistry of 'intelligent design' after thinking (hard) about it for two years. That doesn't suggest a scientist that will accept anyone's work in the climate field if it doesn't agree with what he wants to hear.

re: #173 Obdicut

Mate - it doesnt matter a jot what I rekon Spencer believes on those issue

I'd say however that depending upon what he believes, then anything that flows directly from that belief - if it runs contrary to another set of data - needs to be evaluated.

But if he believes the earth WAS born 6000 years ago and yet...his mathematics (as an example) solves some sort of problem that has evaded us for centuries- what then do you do with his revelation??? Answer me that one???
Discard it because he believes the earth is too young or accept is a a coexisting issue.

Oh mama.

re: #173 Obdicut

Obdicut,

I responded to you downstairs.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

re: #170 yakabebe

Point taken re quote mining - yes it wasnt my work - i didnt say it was but referred to a "moments" search

And whilst you may chose to debunk the info so gained, there's no evidence that the men on that list (and I suggest it is probably simply representative of a large body of people) didnt contribute as scientists DESPITE their creatinistic beliefs.

How can someone sit there and truely believe that because someone holds a view of creationism that somehow he is then incapable of say discovering some sort of inorganic chemical theory, or a new mathematical solution or a new electrical engineering concept or in any other and varied disciplines???

I don't care about anyone's personal beliefs.

That said, if they inject their personal beliefs- political, religious, artistic, etc- into real science, I have a problem. There is no room for personal agendas of any kind in science.

As long as scientists distinguish what are personal beliefs from their work as real scientists, I don't care if they come to work in Sponge Bob SquarePants pajamas.

re: #164 jaunte

Many scientists can be talented and productive in one field, and incompetent in another. Those that deny the validity of a well-established field like evolutionary biology are probably not to be relied on when they get outside their field of expertise.

One cannot deny evolutionary biology without denying the fundamentals of all the supporting sciences, and that really means the most important part of all, the scientific process.

re: #183 yakabebe

It does matter! He's throwing aside biology, astronomy and geology! Can't you see this?

Yak... Is there any scientific specifics which you wish to discuss or will your answer be to just go read your recommended list of websites and authors?

re: #183 yakabebe

Mate - it doesnt matter a jot what I rekon Spencer believes on those issue

I'd say however that depending upon what he believes, then anything that flows directly from that belief - if it runs contrary to another set of data - needs to be evaluated.

But if he believes the earth WAS born 6000 years ago and yet...his mathematics (as an example) solves some sort of problem that has evaded us for centuries- what then do you do with his revelation??? Answer me that one???
Discard it because he believes the earth is too young or accept is a a coexisting issue.

he can believe whatever he wants aside from his mathematics...he's wrong, maybe even crazy in that regard

re: #165 Naso Tang

Monckton is a Brit, with title yet. What does he know about this Jones guy? (I'm being kind here).

FYI, Monckton also lies and exaggerates about that. He's a hereditary peer since 2006, but:

Monckton has referred to himself as a "peer of the House of Lords" but is not a member of that body.[5] Monckton was an unsuccessful candidate for a Conservative seat in the House of Lords in a March 2007 by-election caused by the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton. He received no votes in the election.

El Oh El. [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

more realistic, non-crazy radio:
[Link: subgenius.com...]
or not

re: #183 yakabebe

The point is that if you're attempting to answer a question that depends on data older than he believes the earth is, he's obviously not the guy to turn to.

The rest of your quote was basically, "Well, what if a shitzophrenic who thought he was a mudcrab solved Fermat's Last Theorem elegantly? Huh?

re: #191 iceweasel

El Oh El. [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Perhaps he is a Lord in the House of Marty Feldman!

/

re: #193 Obdicut

The rest of your quote was basically, "Well, what if a shitzophrenic who thought he was a mudcrab solved Fermat's Last Theorem elegantly? Huh?

No need to demean and insult the mentally ill.

re: #156 Charles

Wow. I just took a quick drive to the store for some staples (i.e. beer) and turned on the radio to hear Tim Conway Jr.

Who is Tim Conway Jr?

re: #194 Gus 802

Perhaps he is a Lord in the House of Marty Feldman!

/

Lord of the House of Cards

re: #194 Gus 802

Perhaps he is a Lord in the House of Marty Feldman!

/

Heh. How are you Gus? What's happening here?

re: #195 Bagua

I can never, for the life of me, spell that word. Good thing I didn't become a psychiatrist.

I'll leave you to it

Might I say discarding a "creationist's" scientific accomplishment simply on the basis he is a creationist is narrow-minded in the extreme

Would I hold suspect such a man's view on a manner of subjects and influenced by his beliefs? Yes

Would I refuse to accept his scientific achievement based on the scientific method, found to be replicable and based on science. No

And to do so makes you the bigot.

Akin to refusing to validate some guys scientific achievements simply because he the head of the KKK and truly believes negros are inferior, geneticaly flawed and really just an animal. Whilst abhorrent and anathema to modern, morally unacceptable and scientifically proven to be false - it doesnt invalidate his finding simply on that basis

Attack the finding thru the scientific method and see how you go.

Continue to disrespect his views but respect his science until you have the PROOF! That is science at work

You're just a lynch mob dressed up in gowns and mortarboards

re: #199 Obdicut

I can never, for the life of me, spell that word. Good thing I didn't become a psychiatrist.

I see, if it was a typo then no harm done.

re: #198 iceweasel

Heh. How are you Gus? What's happening here?

One accidental moby trying to rationalize intelligent design in science. Something like that. Lots of martyrdom coming from said person.

re: #187 Naso Tang

One cannot deny evolutionary biology without denying the fundamentals of all the supporting sciences, and that really means the most important part of all, the scientific process.

If a scientist can't follow the evidence where it leads in one field, two fields, three fields, why would we think they could follow the evidence in a fourth?

re: #191 iceweasel

Hi icedub! Did you and jimmah have a nice thanksgiving? Could you please have yak engage me? I'm so looking to use my 7th grade science class to trash him..LOL
Hope today finds you well my friend

re: #200 yakabebe

You're just a lynch mob dressed up in gowns and mortarboards

This is a stupid comparison which minimizes the real horror of lynch mobs.

re: #200 yakabebe

Your arguments have been refuted by myself and others.

Pretending otherwise is most unseemly.

re: #200 yakabebe

I'll leave you to it

Might I say discarding a "creationist's" scientific accomplishment simply on the basis he is a creationist is narrow-minded in the extreme

Would I hold suspect such a man's view on a manner of subjects and influenced by his beliefs? Yes

Would I refuse to accept his scientific achievement based on the scientific method, found to be replicable and based on science. No

And to do so makes you the bigot.

Akin to refusing to validate some guys scientific achievements simply because he the head of the KKK and truly believes negros are inferior, geneticaly flawed and really just an animal. Whilst abhorrent and anathema to modern, morally unacceptable and scientifically proven to be false - it doesnt invalidate his finding simply on that basis

Attack the finding thru the scientific method and see how you go.

Continue to disrespect his views but respect his science until you have the PROOF! That is science at work

You're just a lynch mob dressed up in gowns and mortarboards

nobody has disregarded his accomplishments with math...seems you have missed the entire point which is relatively simple...sooner or later, this guy is going to hit a dead end with rationale...he cannot have it both ways

re: #200 yakabebe

Might I say discarding a "creationist's" scientific accomplishment simply on the basis he is a creationist is narrow-minded in the extreme

Name one accomplishment of creation science.

re: #200 yakabebe

Would I refuse to accept his scientific achievement based on the scientific method, found to be replicable and based on science. No

Well, let us know when he achieves anything, then, that's found to be replicable and 'based on science'.

Akin to refusing to validate some guys scientific achievements simply because he the head of the KKK and truly believes negros are inferior, geneticaly flawed and really just an animal.

'Negro' is really not the preferred term, even when making a strawman argument after having been caught quote-mining.

re: #201 Bagua

Oh, you seriously thought I was purposefully being insulting? No.

re: #196 Big Steve

Who is Tim Conway Jr?

Son of the comedian Tim Conway who was on the Carol Burnett show for many years. But not funny at all.

re: #200 yakabebe

You're just a lynch mob dressed up in gowns and mortarboards

dang...I am just wearing a tee shirt.

re: #200 yakabebe

Akin to refusing to validate some guys scientific achievements simply because he the head of the KKK and truly believes negros are inferior, geneticaly flawed and really just an animal.

Uh.

re: #200 yakabebe

Might I say discarding a "creationist's" scientific accomplishment simply on the basis he is a creationist is narrow-minded in the extreme

Similarly, discarding a dyslexic's spelling advice simply on the basis that he is a dyslexic is narrowminded in the extreme. /

re: #210 Charles

Son of the comedian Tim Conway who was on the Carol Burnett show for many years. But not funny at all.

Maybe it skips a generation. Sr. sure used up more than his share of funny.

yakalot is finished I think

re: #200 yakabebe

Why are you even here? You started off with insults and continue to insult.

re: #210 Charles

Son of the comedian Tim Conway who was on the Carol Burnett show for many years. But not funny at all.

thanks...my mother went to high school with Tim Conway.

re: #212 Charles

Uh.

Yea ...uh? That post may be worthy of a delete.

re: #213 iceweasel

Similarly, discarding a dyslexic's spelling advice simply on the basis that he is a dyslexic is narrowminded in the extreme. /

Here they hire dyslexics to work in the post office. At least the mail I get has all the right digits for my P.O. Box number. The order isn't that important...

re: #215 albusteve

yakalot is finished I think

The 'science' would say so.

In his mind, he endures.

OK - show me where I started with an insult.

Yak:
Akin to refusing to validate some guys scientific achievements simply because he the head of the KKK and truly believes negros are inferior, geneticaly flawed and really just an animal. Whilst abhorrent and anathema to modern, morally unacceptable and scientifically proven to be false - it doesnt invalidate his finding simply on that basis

You suck pal if that's what you and him think..
I'm disgusted at this point

re: #221 yakabebe

OK - show me where I started with an insult.

#79, where you called Charles inflexible.

re: #204 HoosierHoops

Hi icedub! Did you and jimmah have a nice thanksgiving? Could you please have yak engage me? I'm so looking to use my 7th grade science class to trash him..LOL
Hope today finds you well my friend

Sir Hoops-a-lot! We're great, thanks for asking! How are you and Winston? Have a nice holiday?
Jimmah had his first Thanksgiving meal yesterday and liked it (or was smart enough to say so). :)

re: #217 Big Steve

thanks...my mother went to high school with Tim Conway.

Jr. or Sr.?

re: #223 Sharmuta

#79, where you called Charles inflexible.

And the snark:

We know, as you have already stated, have made up your mind. But Charles- flexibility is the sign of a powerful intellect...

And whilst you may feel brighter than some and wiser than me...

re: #213 iceweasel

Similarly, discarding a dyslexic's spelling advice simply on the basis that he is a dyslexic is narrowminded in the extreme. /

Your in good form tonight Iceweasel :)

How was your thanksgiving among the heathen?

re: #225 wrenchwench

Sr...the McHale's Navy/ Carol Burnett Show Tim Conway.

re: #226 Gus 802

Damn those Lizards and their fact checking! ///

re: #217 Big Steve

thanks...my mother went to high school with Tim Conway.

my grandmother knew a woman who saw Lincoln speak in Kalamazoo...jus sayin

re: #221 yakabebe

OK - show me where I started with an insult.

re: #200 yakabebe

You're just a lynch mob dressed up in gowns and mortarboards

This, for one.

re: #227 Bagua

Your in good form tonight Iceweasel :)

How was your thanksgiving among the heathen heather?

FTFY!

Hey Bagua-baby! How are you? All is well here, apart from being out of beer. The post-Thanksgiving booze-up was a bit excessive. :(
How was your Thanksgiving?

re: #224 iceweasel

Sir Hoops-a-lot! We're great, thanks for asking! How are you and Winston? Have a nice holiday?
Jimmah had his first Thanksgiving meal yesterday and liked it (or was smart enough to say so). :)

I'm so happy for you both...I'm going to blow yak off cause he is an idiot...
and doesn't have the balls to engage the hoopster about science...Coward
Hey...Ask Jimmah about Sefton park estates..Has he ever been there?
Happy thanksgiving and many well wishes...

re: #200 yakabebe

Oh. And you're out to lunch with that one. Using the 1949 word to describe black people and then using an analogy of a racist Klan member that might be right in some instance to defend Roy Spencer and the rest of that Disco Institute army. You even had the audacity to use the phrase "lynch mob" in the same post.

Well night all...there is a large piece of left over pumpkin pie that has chocolate wafers that can set up to cantilever an ever larger mound of whipped cream on top...all calling my name. While Big Steve has lost 80 lbs in 2009, yesterday and today were a bit of a glorious set back.

re: #233 HoosierHoops

I'm so happy for you both...I'm going to blow yak off cause he is an idiot...
and doesn't have the balls to engage the hoopster about science...Coward
Hey...Ask Jimmah about Sefton park estates..Has he ever been there?
Happy thanksgiving and many well wishes...

Thanks Hoops! We're painting and doing all kinds of domestic bliss type stuff. I'm even baking bread now. Yikes!

Jimmah says he hasn't heard of it, but I think he will answer you in a bit. All our best wishes to you and yours, as ever.

re: 151 recusancy

You need to watch the whole video of Lindzen, he talks very much about the science. You only watched the first segment.

re: 139 Obdicut

So, Godwin law and all.

Read the wiki, Godwin only applies to internet debate, not to video exposition. So, no not Godwin law and all.

re: 223 Sharmuta

inflexible is an insult? How about if someone called Charles imperfect, would that be an insult as well? Thinking that someone is inflexible is merely an opinion, and a relative one at that. Hardly an insult.

Apparently, they're on a rotating schedule tonight.

re: #237 carnaby

Uh- yes. Calling him something he's not is insulting. Perhaps if you read the comment in question and had the full context you would see it was also most certainly meant to be insulting.

I thought I'd just stir the pot.

"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence"
Mike Hulme; Professor of Climate Change School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia, Founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change

Have fun with this one.

re: #238 Charles

Apparently, they're on a rotating schedule tonight.

tag team...snack break first, gotta scarf that last energy bar

re: #233 HoosierHoops

I'm so happy for you both...I'm going to blow yak off cause he is an idiot...
and doesn't have the balls to engage the hoopster about science...Coward
Hey...Ask Jimmah about Sefton park estates..Has he ever been there?
Happy thanksgiving and many well wishes...

Hi hoops! Thanks for the good wishes. Never been to Sefton park estates. I believe it's part of Scouseland?

re: #235 Big Steve

Well night all...there is a large piece of left over pumpkin pie that has chocolate wafers that can set up to cantilever an ever larger mound of whipped cream on top...all calling my name. While Big Steve has lost 80 lbs in 2009, yesterday and today were a bit of a glorious set back.

80 lbs? oh lawdy... I bragged about being 5 lbs over my playing weight in college last year..I was alarmed to find I was 5 lbs under this year.. I've been eating food like crazy this last month...I'm a picky eater..Now I'm alarmed and ate a 1 pound steak tonight...Shit...too much stress I guess...But I am alarmed...Eat hoopster eat! potatoes with all the fixings is in my future..
Damn

re: #239 Sharmuta

A jury is inflexible, as they read the verdict. As they should be.
Thanks Charles. Thanks Ludwig. Thanks others too numerous, for the links the charts etc.

The incredibly stupid CRU-gate story just got even stupider:

[Link: spectator.org...]

re: #242 Jimmah

Hi hoops! Thanks for the good wishes. Never been to Sefton park estates. I believe it's part of Scouseland?

North of London my friend...Just wondered

re: #231 Varek Raith

To be pedantic - that was not the start

And to those who took offence at what by any true measure and within the context of Charles calling all creationists "kooks" wasnt an insult - I proffer my deepest apologies.

Didn't quite get there would be such sensitivities here. Who woulda thunk it.

And to clarify to the reader who clearly misinterpreted me when i drew the analogy to the KKK - I didnt either suggest he would be correct in his view or that i in anyway shared his view -indeed I made it clear that it was an unacceptable position so no need to feel disgusted

And to the poster who challenged the use of "negro" ...geeezzz - its still a racial grouping dude. And btw...what is the "African amrican" thing anyway??? First and foremost be "American" unless you're Michelle the wife of god of course and never really felt proud of being a yank

And secondly how many generations disconnect is there to africa anyway

Another modern nonsense

re: #247 yakabebe

???

re: #247 yakabebe

Keep typing. Your true colors are finally starting to show Mr. Duke.

re: #245 Charles

The incredibly stupid CRU-gate story just got even stupider:

[Link: spectator.org...]

Ew, that made M. Malkin pop up on my screen. That's ok, I've seen worse from over there.