while the senate and congress putz around…they fail to do thier duty to insure that the value of the US Dollar is upheld…this is a violation of thier oath…and a violation of thier duty to the People of the USA…
its not affiliated party wise…the treason is bi-partisan…
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 3:39 pm
I posted this in response to the last blog entry, but I guess this is a more appropriate place:
Did you guys see that the Berkeley Earth Project, a new study run by outsiders skeptical of the world’s climatologist community and funded partially by the Koch brothers, released their results and confirmed almost exactly the the findings of the previous studies indicating global warming outside of normal cyclical change? You guys ready to explain to me how these guys were also in the evil liberals’ back pockets, or whatever your excuse was for why such a strong consensus among climatologists should be ignored?
J. R. BabcockOctober 21, 2011 / 3:57 pm
or whatever your excuse was for why such a strong consensus among climatologists should be ignored?
Because, as was pointed out in the previous thread where you originally posted this, it’s at the bottom of most people’s priority list. That shouldn’t stop you from giving generously to the cause.
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 4:29 pm
corky
I LIVED through THIS….Buffalo NY
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 4:50 pm
And as I replied in the other thread (now apparently ineptly merged here), the fact that people like you have swindled the general public into thinking that global warming isn’t worth worrying about despite consensus among experts on the issue just means you’ve done a good job tricking the uninformed masses.
Claudius Augustus GermanicusOctober 21, 2011 / 5:03 pm
The issue is and always has been anthropogenic global warming.
The earth cools, the earth warms, always has. The warmists think humans can change that; there is no evidence that human activity has had any effect on the global temprature nor is there any evidence that it can.
“What Berkeley Earth has not done is make an independent assessment of how much of the observed warming is due to human actions, Richard Mueller acknowledged.</I” Page 2, “COOLING THE WARMING DEBATE Berkeley Earth Releases Global Land Warming Analysis”
J. R. BabcockOctober 21, 2011 / 5:17 pm
the fact that people like you have swindled the general public into thinking that global warming isn’t worth worrying about despite consensus among experts on the issue just means you’ve done a good job tricking the uninformed masses.
ROTFLMAO!!! That is about the looniest comment I’ve ever read. The Left has spent hundreds of billions of dollars attempting to sell man-made climate change. Didn’t get much for their money, did they?
RetiredSpookOctober 21, 2011 / 5:38 pm
you’ve done a good job tricking the uninformed masses.
Actually, Cory, one of the earliest studies was done seven years ago by eight of the world’s leading economists. Perhaps you should contact them and ask them how there were tricked.
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 5:39 pm
“The issue is and always has been anthropogenic global warming.
The earth cools, the earth warms, always has. The warmists think humans can change that; there is no evidence that human activity has had any effect on the global temprature nor is there any evidence that it can.”
No evidence? Really? Even though we can measure the heat-retaining effects of CO2 and measure the steep increase in the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, there is NO evidence? Come on. You guys were all freaking out when somebody posted an article about how some company was going to try to deliberately manipulate climate. Now you don’t believe it is even possible?
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 5:41 pm
“Actually, Cory, one of the earliest studies was done seven years ago by eight of the world’s leading economists. Perhaps you should contact them and ask them how there were tricked.”
Neat, now you are citing studies that agree that global warming “must be addressed”. Have you switched sides?
RetiredSpookOctober 21, 2011 / 6:02 pm
Neat, now you are citing studies that agree that global warming “must be addressed”. Have you switched sides?
Don’t be a smart ass, Cory. All I was trying to show is that even folks who buy into the theory place it last in their list of priorities.
Here’s what they said:
Poor
Ranked fourteenth to seventeenth were: a migration project (guest-worker programmes for the unskilled), which was deemed to discourage integration; and three projects addressing climate change (optimal carbon tax, the Kyoto protocol and value-at-risk carbon tax), which the panel judged to be least cost-efficient of the proposals.
Global warming
The panel found that all three climate policies have “costs that were likely to exceed the benefits”. It further stated “global warming must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive.”
In regard to the science of global warming, the paper presented by Cline relied primarily on the framework set by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and accepted the consensus view on global warming that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the primary cause of the global warming. Cline relies on various research studies published in the field of economics and attempted to compare the estimated cost of mitigation policies against the expected reduction in the damage of the global warming.
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 6:12 pm
They agreed that the three proposed solutions were poor returns on investment, but that something still needed to be done. That’s hardly in resounding agreement with the idea that global warming isn’t real, and even if it is, we should ignore it.
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 4:06 pm
corky
EXPLAIN this
American mid west
T – Rex
Glaciers
Temperate
Oh riiiight; the eeeevil GWB and the Koch bros
Stuck on stupid or what?
PS kid
If you were old enough you would remember in the 1970’s the whole rage was how the earth was COOLING entering into an ice age. we would all starve to death ( enter dean scream) AYeeeeeeeeeeee !!!!
and in 2011 be ice skating on the gulf of mexico.
SUCKER!!!!!
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 4:47 pm
Do you copy and paste the same drivel into every dicussion about global warming? I can’t even figure out what you are trying to say. I can link you to the Wikipedia article on the T-Rex if that’s what you are asking for?
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 4:53 pm
corky
WATCH the video…….
neocon October 21, 2011 at 4:29 pm #
then get back with the answer to the scientific consensus of a few decades ago.
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 4:56 pm
I already addressed that, at length, the last time there was a global warming discussion around here. You were there. I’m not really interested in repeating myself for somebody who is incapable of even remembering where the conversation went last time.
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 4:57 pm
corky
okay; for someone who has no imagination or comprehension.
EXACT SAME geographical area
T – Rex = TROPICAL climate
GLACIERS = FROZEN climate
Temperate = moderate climate
THINGS CHANGE ………WITHOUT man’s intervention.
Imagine that!!
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 5:00 pm
corky
typical lib drone answer,
REFUTE the scientific consensus of a couple decades ago, or look like a LOON flailing his arms wildly in the ai ,with spittle running down his chin screaming the KOCH brothers over and over.
Did you just get back from OWS??
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 5:05 pm
I’ve not been to an occupy anything protest. Feel free to keep trying to figure out whose “drone” I am, though.
are you that conceited that you actually think we give a shxt about whose drone you are stooge….
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 4:18 pm
corky
the “OTHER” thread was about abortion, do try to keep up DUMMY!
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 4:24 pm
CorySucker
Bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha
was that “ONE is Born every minute” ?
‘Fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, by prominent scientists and throughout the media’
Tuesday, October 06, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Despite many claims to the contrary, the 1970’s global cooling fears were widespread among many scientists and in the media. Despite the fact that there was no UN IPCC organization created to promote global cooling in the 1970s and despite the fact that there was nowhere near the tens of billions of dollars in funding spent today to promote man-made global warming, fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media.
Newsweek Magazine even used the climate “tipping point” argument in 1975. Newsweek wrote April 28, 1975 article: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”
But on October 24, 2006, Newsweek admitted it erred in predicting a coming ice age in the 1970’s. (NYT: Obama’s global warming promoting science czar Holdren ‘warned of a coming ice age’ in 1971 – September 29, 2009 & also see: NASA warned of human caused coming ‘ice age’ in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007 and also see: 1975 New York Times: “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing, Major Cooling May Be Ahead”, May 21, 1975 and see: 1974 Time Magazine: “Another Ice Age,” June 24, 1974
A Small Sampling of 1970’s Reports Warning of Global Cooling:
National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age in 1975
Excerpt: “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” – Newsweek – April 28, 1975 “The Cooling World”
NASA warned of human caused coming ‘ice age’ in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007
Excerpt: “The world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,” read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: “In the next 50 years” — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.” If sustained over “several years, five to 10,” or so Mr. Rasool estimated, “such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
New York Times: Obama’s global warming promoting science czar Holdren ‘warned of a coming ice age’ in 1971 – September 29, 2009 – By John Tierney – Excerpt: In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren’t the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can’t think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. (See also: Obama Science ‘Czar’ John Holdren’s 1971 warning: A ‘New Ice Age’ likely – September 23, 2009)
1977 book “The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age” – CIA Feared Global Cooling – Excerpt: In the early 1970s, top CIA thinkers concluded that changing weather was “perhaps the greatest single challenge that America will face in coming years”. As a result they ordered several studies of the world’s climate, the likely changes to come and their probably effect on America and the rest of the world. The studies conclude that the world is entering a difficult period during which major climate change (further cooling) is likely to occur. That is the consensus of the Central intelligence Agency, which highlights the fact that we are overdue for a new ice age. Many climatologists believe that since the 1960s, the world has been slipping towards a new ice age. ….the evidence suggests that change will be a return to a climate that was dominant from the seventeenth century to about 1850. Soviet weatherman Mikhail Budyko believes that 1 2.8F drop in the average global temperature would start glaciers on the march. If the temperature should fall by another 0.7F, it could usher in a ninety-thousand year tyranny if ice and snow.
1975 Newsweek: “The Cooling World,” Newsweek. April 28, 1975 By Peter Gwynne
Excerpt: The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. […] The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” […] Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.
Professor Stephen Schneider converted from warning of a coming ice age in the 1970s to promoting of man-made global warming fears today. In the 1970s Professor Stephen Schneider was one of the leading voices warning the Earth was going to experience a catastrophic man made ice-age. However he is now a member of the UN IPCC and is a leading advocate warning that the Earth is facing catastrophic global warming. In 1971, Schneider co-authored a paper warning of a man-made “ice age.” See: Rasool S., & Schneider S.”Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141 – Excerpt: ‘The rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” Schneider was still promoting the coming “ice age” in 1978. (See: Unearthed 1970’s video: Global warming activist Stephen Schneider caught on 1978 TV show ‘In Search Of…The Coming Ice Age’ – September 20, 2009) By the 1980’s, Schneider reversed himself and began touting man-made global warming. See: “The rate of [global warming] change is so fast that I don’t hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems,” Schneider said on UK TV in 1990.
1975 New York Times: “Climate Changes Called Ominous,”, June 19, 1975 – Harold M. Schmeck, – p. 31. Excerpt: “The most drastic potential change considered in the new report is an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that governed the planet’s climate for the past 10,000 years. […] The report also noted that periods of benign climate comparable to the present are unusual and have existed for about 8 percent of the last 700,000 years.”
1974 New York Times: “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output,”, August 8, 1974 – Harold M. Schmeck – p. 35. Excerpt: A recent meeting of climate experts in Bonn, West Germany, produced the unanimous conclusion that the change in global weather patterns pose a severe threat to agriculture that could lead to major crop failures and mass starvation. […] The drop [in global temps] since the 1940s has only been half a degree, but some scientists believe this is enough to trigger changes that could have important effects on the world’s weather and agriculture.
1975 New York Times: “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing, Major Cooling May Be Ahead”, May 21, 1975 – By Walter Sullivan – Excerpt: Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable. Hints that is may already begun are evident. The drop in mean temperatures since 1950 in the Northern Hemisphere has been sufficient, for example, to shorten Britain’s growing season for crops by two weeks.
1974 Time Magazine: “Another Ice Age,” June 24, 1974 – Excerpt: However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. […] Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth. […] Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.
Newsweek admitted it erred in reporting on predictions of a coming ice age in the 1970’s – October 24, 2006 – Excerpt: It took 31 years, but Newsweek magazine admitted it was incorrect about climate change. In a nearly 1,000-word correction, Senior Editor Jerry Adler finally agreed that a 1975 piece on global cooling “was so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future.” Even then, Adler wasn’t quite willing to blame Newsweek for the incredible failure. “In fact, the story wasn’t ‘wrong’ in the journalistic sense of ‘inaccurate,’” he claimed. “Some scientists indeed thought the Earth might be cooling in the 1970s, and some laymen – even one as sophisticated and well-educated as Isaac Asimov – saw potentially dire implications for climate and food production,” Adler added. However, the story admitted both Time magazine and Newsweek were wrong on the subject – Newsweek as recently as 1992.
Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, a prominent critic of the man-made global warming fears today, recalls how pervasive the coming ice age scare was when he was in graduate school. “When I was going to graduate school, it was gospel that the Ice Age was about to start. I had trouble warming up to that one too. This (greenhouse) is not the first climate apocalypse, but it’s certainly the loudest,” Michaels said.
1970: First Earth Day Promoted Ice Age Fears – Excerpt: At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1970, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”
1976 Book: “The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun” By Lowell Ponte – Excerpt: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”
Earth Day 1970: Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling: “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, who was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) converted into a leading global warming skeptic before his death in 2008. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms “sky is falling” man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. (LINK)
Fire and Ice: Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming,” Business and Media Institute, By R. Warren Anderson, Dan Gainor, Dan (2006) – Excerpt: The media have warned about impending climate doom four different times in the last 100 years. Only they can’t decide if mankind will die from warming or cooling.
1978: “Trends and Variations of Mean Temperature in the Lower Troposphere,” AMS Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 106, No. 3 (March), pp. 413-416. – Harley, W. S.
1971: “The Effect of Atmospheric Aerosols on Climate with Special Reference to Temperature near the Earth’s Surface.” J. Applied Meteorology 10: 703-14. – Mitchell, J. Murray, Jr.
Mitchell, J. Murray, Jr. (1975). “A Reassessment of Atmospheric Pollution as a Cause of Long-Term Changes of Global Temperature.” In Global Effects of Environmental Pollution, edited by S. Fred Singer. Dordrecht: Reidel.
J. R. BabcockOctober 21, 2011 / 4:33 pm
That appears to be a pretty convincing study, Cory. First, why do you supposed it is that economic study after economic study shows that, in a list of global priorities, global warming always comes in at or near the bottom? Second, seeing as how concerned you are, I assume you have allocated a significant portion of your discretionary income to helping combat the problem of climate change — right? If not, why not?
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 4:38 pm
JR check out the video
talk about a flip flop
follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 4:43 pm
neocon,
Yes, please follow the money. Please go to the finance page for this study and let me know who paid for this study.
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 4:49 pm
ALGORE the divinity degree dropout and his mind numbed robots?
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 5:02 pm
Nope, not on the list. Try again.
Count d'HaricotsOctober 21, 2011 / 5:28 pm
More than half the money comes from the US Department of Energy.
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 5:45 pm
“More than half the money comes from the US Department of Energy.”
Nope. The were the single biggest contributer, but not by a lot. Certainly not more than half, at least according to the financial page of the project.
Count d'HaricotsOctober 21, 2011 / 6:00 pm
The “project” is part of a Department of Energy contract totaling more than $16.0 Million. The “study” is part of the award; as such the contract portion only lists the actual dollar award and not the institutional support received from the contract; this is called indirect costs associated with the study. Direct cash award so far has been $188,0000 with the bulk of support coming in the form of pay and benefit support and facilities support for the researchers as indicated by the statement; “many of the participants work for Berkeley Lab”
neocon1October 23, 2011 / 10:38 am
follow the MONEY $$$$$$$$$$
2009-10-12: Billionaire investor George Soros. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP Billionaire financier and philanthropist has pledged to invest more than $1bn (£625m) of his own money in clean technology to tackle . Speaking in Copenhagen on Saturday evening, the Hungarian-born Soros also announced the foundation of the Climate Policy Initiative, which he will fund with $10m annually for the… more »
In short, the climate models that have been used by your so-called “experts”, the UN and the Goreacle himself were FAULTY!
Plus let us not forget the revealing emails where huge assumptions were made, unreliable sources cited, etc. etc.
You need new talking points drone. Yours has been debunked months ago.
Another observation, no matter how many times this has been asked no one has been able to cite a source that has revealed what the “normal” temperature of the planet is. Are we warming above it? Or, are we warming to it?
Don’t bother citing Gore’s hockey stick model…. This too has been debunked since the rise in temperature PRECEDED the measured increase in CO2 by 800 years.
So, what will be your excuse now? You didn’t say it…. or… that is not what I meant but I did say it before I didn’t???
“The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 15 preexisting data archives. ”
in other words…trash in…trash out…
they are trying to use the same false informational databases to get different answers…and that fails to address the core faults of the existing “peer reviewed” lies that the global warming is real…
ANOTHER LIE FROM CORYSTOOGE
do you EVER PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR BUTT BEFORE YOU THINK cory?
your berkeley BS line is nothing but spin on defective information that makes it USELESS…
the reason the libtards ONLY USE 200 years of information on thier lies…is because that was a low point in global temp after the global temp fell…this was the middle of the mini ice age that began around 1k and ends shortly after 1700AD…they dont like us looking at the massive fluctuation in temps that is demonstrated where the temps rise from 200AD continuously through 1000AD…only to drastically drop again for 700 more years thereafter…
the lies are easy to spot if you just use common sense and the WHOLE TRUTH isnt that hard to find…
corystooge is a pure librard in a real sense…they have kept him/her in the dark…and all they feed him/her is sh**t…
CoryOctober 21, 2011 / 4:37 pm
What, so now the argument has shifted from “Global Warming isn’t real” to “We’ve already convinced the public that isn’t real, so too bad, we’ve won”? Congratulations on tricking people into working towards possibly catastrophic global climate change, I guess?
RetiredSpookOctober 21, 2011 / 4:39 pm
What, so now the argument has shifted from “Global Warming isn’t real” to “We’ve already convinced the public that isn’t real, so too bad, we’ve won”?
No, Cory, I think that just how people like you perceive it. In reality, GW has been a low global priority for years. And I can’t recall EVER seeing anyone on this blog argue that the planet hasn’t warmed in the last century. There is near universal agreement on that.
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 4:42 pm
Really, the Koch brothers donated to this study because they believed that it would confirmed what they already knew, that the previous studies which have been repeatedly attacked (climategate anybody? I know you’ve had blog posts here about climategate, which was about one of the studies that this one mirrors) were right? That’s your answer?
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 4:45 pm
corky
Really, the Koch brothers donated
END of story, any thing else is BDS and BS
RetiredSpookOctober 21, 2011 / 5:06 pm
Really, the Koch brothers donated to this study because they believed that it would confirmed what they already knew, that the previous studies which have been repeatedly attacked
Cory,
You have this paranoid and unhealthy obsession with the Koch Brothers. I don’t know anyone here who is a fan of or apologist for the Koch Brothers. Anyone here believe everything the Koch Brothers have a hand in funding? Anyone here believe this is the first time someone funded a study and didn’t get the result they were looking for? Anyone here believe this study is the final, definitive answer on this topic? More importantly, does anyone here give a rat’s ass if it is?
Claudius Augustus GermanicusOctober 21, 2011 / 5:10 pm
Actually, it was the Charles G. Koch Charitible Foundation that donated $150,000 as an “unrestricted educational grant“. Unrestricted donors have no say in how the funds are used, the research done, how it’s conducted or what is published as a result.
The Evile Koch Brothers had nothing to do with this.
Claudius Augustus GermanicusOctober 21, 2011 / 5:18 pm
You see, because the Berkeley Earth Surface is a cooperative extension of the Lawrence – Berkeley Labs; part of the Department of Energy and Administered by the University of California, Berkeley.
Count d'HaricotsOctober 21, 2011 / 5:23 pm
Seriously?
Another government run academic institution, dependent on government resources confirming what other government run and government dependent academic institutions have already published, and this is news why?
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 5:26 pm
The Unrestricted Educational Grant was given specifically to this project. Sure, they couldn’t influence anything directly, but the fact that the money was committed at all is a pretty solid indication of what they were hoping to get from the study, and that all of their money was going towards funding the study. What you are saying is that it wouldn’t be indicative of anything if Phillip Morris contributed money to a study to determine whether smoking was bad for you because they did it in the form of an unrestricted educational grant.
RetiredSpookOctober 21, 2011 / 5:49 pm
but the fact that the money was committed at all is a pretty solid indication of what they were hoping to get from the study, and that all of their money was going towards funding the study.
Cory,
See Claudius’ comment at 5:10
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 6:01 pm
What exactly do you think I was replying to? The grant was not given to Berkley. It was given specifically to this study. It was given so as to avoid indications of undue direct influence, but that doesn’t change WHY it was given.
Claudius Augustus GermanicusOctober 21, 2011 / 6:16 pm
No cory, Berkeley Lab requested a grant as part of the project noted above; Charles Koch Foundation issued an educational grant to Lawrence Berkeley Lab to further the educational opportunity the study would promote. The Grant application specified unrestricted; that’s the choice of the grantee not the grantor.
I don’t understand your point here; the evile Koch Brothers donated to the most left-wing lab at the most left-wing university in the most left-wing state and expected … what in return?
Could it be the Foundation was issuing a grant requested to further education by a credible institution that has not completed its study expecting to further our understanding of a complex issue? Or do you think they’re really liberals at heart and wanted to get a result they could slap on a bumper sticker and parade around Wall Street?
coryOctober 21, 2011 / 6:20 pm
The only thing they expected in return was to get the results of the study already in progress. The fact that they donated merely is indicative of their opinion on the likely outcome of the study, and therefore the general disposition of the researchers. Or, in other words, the Koch Foundation thought it did not have a significant liberal bias.
Count d'HaricotsOctober 21, 2011 / 6:25 pm
Uh, you realize youi’re not making any sense, right?
you seem to have a lot of words that come from the Koch bro’s corystooge…
you dont fool me…you have no clue what the Kochs intent was when they donated money to berkeley, you have no clue what the money was originally tagged for…you have no clue if the statements you attribute to the Koch bro’s are accurate…as a matter of fact…when you have your head stuffed up your beehind so far like you do…you have no clue period…end of story
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 4:40 pm
No dummy
watch the video then get back to us with your assessment.
mine is, there is one born every minute (sucker)
J. R. BabcockOctober 21, 2011 / 4:42 pm
Incidentally, Cory; the interesting dynamic in the article I linked to is this:
Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey. Since 2007, when the item was first included on the priorities list, dealing with global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom. Even so, the percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents.
You can read this two ways, I guess. (1) global warming is more of a political issue than a scientific issue; and (2) Democrats are more concerned than Republicans about saving the planet — well, at least 43% are, while Independents are more or less ambivalent.
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 5:08 pm
Ooooooooo Noooooooo Mr Billllllllllllll
were ALL gonna DIE!!!!!!!!!!
Oh WAIT!!
====================================================
1970: First Earth Day Promoted Ice Age Fears – Excerpt: At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1970, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”
1976 Book: “The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun” By Lowell Ponte – Excerpt: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”
===================================================
Earth Day 1970: Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling: “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”
Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.
“Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?
” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added
tricking people…lol…from a mental midget that presents lies to a “integrity” filled stooge…
flush it corystooge…you lost…this whole claptrap you are pulling is dreams of grandeur made up by soros and the extremely wealthy to capitalize on the public’s good will by creating a crisis that DOES NOT EXIST…
whats it like in there…you have your head stuck so far up your beehind that you actually pretend that you are just a regular person…you really dont see how stupid your arguement is…clue in stooge…your trash is still…trash
Green Mountain BoyOctober 21, 2011 / 5:06 pm
We are all DOOMED!!!! DOOOOOOMMMMMEEDDD!!! I tell ya. Better get you Ice cave fortress deck out for the comingcold wave. I just hope Al Gore doesnt visit central Illinois this winter, we get enough snaow as it is. Don’t think I could hadle great lake snow.
Kinda hard to dig out 5 foot snow drifts. Don’t even want to think about those 10 footers. 😛
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 5:11 pm
GMB
we are (snow) skiing here in Fla as we speak.
Oh Wait
the A/C is turned down.
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 5:12 pm
GMB
Our first son was conceived during that blizzard, had lots of food, beer, and a 7 day curfew 🙂
Green Mountain BoyOctober 21, 2011 / 5:18 pm
Neo, LOL. I’ll have to see those “Ski Florida” Advertisements. Don’t count it out though, Al, Billion Dollar Baby” Gore might just visit. I wouldn’t wish that on you but you never know. 😛
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 5:27 pm
GMB
I used to wonder how the younger people could be duped into socialist communism,and the likes of AGW which is another one of those frauds with a re searchable history.
Kids brought up in broken homes, “taught” by left wing loon ideologues, with political agendas like catspuke and (lessor ) baldork are part of the answer.
The phrase “save the planet” is even too cartoonish for my 6yo grandson.
it is like 100 people eating beans and standing on the beach to turn a cat 5 hurricanes with gas power.
Been down south of there near the Kentucky border skiing before. Near Paoli. Not bad skiing and the people are a lot friendlier than out west.
Maybe Ill go try the slopes in Iowa this year. 🙂
RetiredSpookOctober 21, 2011 / 5:51 pm
Maybe Ill go try the slopes in Iowa this year.
Iowa doesn’t have anywhere near the cornfield grooming equipment that Terre Haute has. Just sayin’.
Green Mountain BoyOctober 21, 2011 / 5:20 pm
I am not going to say anything bad about theKoch Brothers, I got my check for this month, did you? 😛
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 5:28 pm
GMB
a BIG bonus, and a nekked pic of bwany fwank and the Mooch.
neoconOctober 21, 2011 / 5:41 pm
OK Guys
BBB time….
Buds, Beer, Bees (applebees)
AMF until tomorrow, unless the floods wash us away and we burn to death from AGW
Green Mountain BoyOctober 21, 2011 / 5:47 pm
Yeah sure Neo, just go ahead and add to the pollution, driving some gas hog that produces about as carbon as Owl Bores jet. Planet Hater ! 😛
Green Mountain BoyOctober 21, 2011 / 6:04 pm
So does anyone want to make a bet on whether or not bams will declare a “national emergency” before the elections?
I’ll put a six pack of you favorite beverage that he will on it.
bardolfOctober 21, 2011 / 6:19 pm
I don’t recall if we’re at a 6 pack or a case. By national emergency I’m assuming you are not talking about something like a blizzard but something more militaristic. If you are thinking along the lines of the later I’ll go double or nothing. Bams don’t have the courage to declare an emergency.
He’s finally going to bring the troops home to keep the naive young people from defecting to the GOP. That’s another easy prediction which has come to pass.
Are the Illini going to roll over again this weekend? Just when I pointed out the 6-0 start they had to choke.
Green Mountain BoyOctober 21, 2011 / 6:38 pm
Thanks Bardolf! Just when my negativity was going away you had to say somethin.
As far as what I owe you it is at a six pack. You need to privide me a address.
College Don that goes by Bardolf
Somewhere in Lincoln, Ne
xxxxx
Doesnt cut it as an address
Ask Matt or Leo to send my email addy and I’ll be glad to arrange delivery of your beer 🙂
Bams doesnt need courage, i am sure the mooch will provide it for him.
President for Life!! All Hail BhO
bardolfOctober 21, 2011 / 8:00 pm
GMB
I’m still angling to give a talk at urbana champaign in the distant future. If it happens I’ll make you sit in the audience and provide the beverages!
Green Mountain BoyOctober 21, 2011 / 8:12 pm
What subject? Pole sitting, basket weaving, or advanced cheerleader oogling? 😛
bardolfOctober 23, 2011 / 4:47 pm
GMB
From 6-0 to 6-2.
Count d'HaricotsOctober 21, 2011 / 6:23 pm
Cool, I’ll take that bet; my “favorite beverage” is Macallan Scotch (25 Year).
For six of those I’ll take a chance that Obama will put on a sun-dress and sing Tip-Toe through the Tulips in the Rose Garden with Barney Frank playing a kazoo.
bardolfOctober 21, 2011 / 7:57 pm
Images of Tiny Tim seered into my brain. Scarred for life I tell you.
neocon1October 22, 2011 / 1:08 pm
with Barney Frank playing a kazoo.
dont know whether to laugh or puke.
neocon1October 22, 2011 / 1:12 pm
Count d'HaricotsOctober 21, 2011 / 7:36 pm
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers
Describes obAMATEUR’s self-proclaimed “flawless” administration to the letter! After all according to him, he has made all the correct decisions and it is someone else’s fault that the economy is doing so poorly. It must be all those ATMs keeping banks from hiring tellers, the earthquake, the Arab spring, or other reason he outlined a couple of months ago…..
He is now reaching out to those that are least capable of producing you know those who are occupying Wall Street using the typical class warfare, since he and his fellow democrats are running away from his record.
Gee wally, I know you drones have to stick together, but really?
Cory’s responses were countered at every turn.
For example, he states that CO2 was not the main cause of AGW. But all treaties, legislation and “taxes” are aimed at “reducing” its output. Cory’s “arguments” are all over the place, when one talking point is shot down, he moves on to the next one.
At least think for yourself, drone, before you chime in with the liberal echo chamber.
Pathetic.
WallaceOctober 25, 2011 / 10:56 am
“when one talking point is shot down, he moves on to the next one.”
Yup, that’s exactly how you and spook operated here. You tried to exhaust cory with a game of talking points whack-a-mole, but because cory has the facts on his side and you do not (and because you and spook are, by and large, scientifically illiterate), you failed at that and he was easily able to prove you wrong at every turn. Hence spook’s special little admission of failure.
You, however, aren’t smart enough to know when you’ve been beaten, as I’ve certainly learned from experience, so you just keep right on with the talking points, but the mindless repetition of talking points is the only thing at which you’ve shown any aptitude whatsoever, so your options are extremely limited.
Gee wally, I see you have the same reading comprehension problem from which many of you drones suffer.
Cory’s “whack-a-mole” talking points as you put it were debunked each time. The basis for his talking points and the whole anti-CO2 agenda has been proven faulty. Each time he shifted positions and arguments and each time he was shot down (no reference to violence there).
Yet, you continue with your inane and senseless repetition (regurgitation) of utter lies due to your lack of reading comprehension.
Thanks for playing, drone. You lost again…..
RetiredSpookOctober 25, 2011 / 12:38 pm
Yeah, you’re right Wally. I was just completely outclassed. I’m not sure how I will ever recover from the intellectual beating you and Cory have given me. I guess your work here is done.
WallaceOctober 25, 2011 / 1:15 pm
Nah, Cory did all the work–you know, presenting the facts, pointing out the obvious flaws with your barrage of talking points. I just enjoyed the show, and I’m looking forward to repeat performances as I am very confident you will mouth the same discredited arguments every time this subject is raised.
Green Mountain BoyOctober 22, 2011 / 12:14 am
Spook, that doesnt translate well into my mother tounge. Do you mean he should dig faster or slower?
RetiredSpookOctober 22, 2011 / 9:17 am
Neither; he should have stopped digging a long time ago.
Green Mountain BoyOctober 22, 2011 / 4:46 am
Well, now that Libya is done, where will bams start his next war? Any guesses?
The increase in CO2. . which historically happens AFTER – significantly after – the increase in temperature itself?
RetiredSpookOctober 22, 2011 / 9:23 am
And, as TireofLibs noted last night, a recent peer-reviewed study calls into question the assumptions of the climate models WRT feedbacks.
CoryOctober 22, 2011 / 10:59 am
It calls into question the magnitude of some effects, not the base assumptions. There is always an argument to be made that our scientists might be wrong on how quickly the effects of our pollution are going to cause major damage, but if that ends up being the game you want to play, you are just saying that global warming effects are real and you want to just gamble and hope that we run out of oil and coal before we cause catastrophe.
Count d'HaricotsOctober 24, 2011 / 10:58 am
“ out of oil and coal before we cause catastrophe.”
Wow, cory, did you miss that you did not use the word “facts”?
The hysteria of the left (and yours) are based on those erroneous climate models. Yet, you are going to continue to perpetuate those “assumptions” without any discriminatory thought.
Well, you are a drone after all, regurgitating mindless dumbed down talking points.
The short of it is that the lag is already accounted for long term climate models. CO2 is not the initial cause of the warming events (nobody ever made the claim that CO2 is the only causal factor in temperature change), but during the course of natural warming events, CO2 gets released into the atmosphere because of warming, which in turn causes the warming event to be warmer than it otherwise would have been. It’s a complicated issue that you and I (and politicians whose training is in law or business) don’t have the background to analyze as an expert on the subject would.
It’s also worth noting that we’re on fairly new ground here. We have more CO2 in our atmosphere than we’ve had at any time in hundreds of thousands of years.
more BS…ssdd in other words…the only thing that can be verified is that the writter of your article does not know…he keeps grasping at un-named variables as a cause that…are not founded in scientific fact…
Again cory regurgitates mindless talking points: “The short of it is that the lag is already accounted for long term climate models.”
Again, the climate models have been proven faulty (refer to the post above).
Then cory puts revisionism into overdrive: “(nobody ever made the claim that CO2 is the only causal factor in temperature change)”
Really?
The hockey stick graph in Algore’s A Convenient Lie (errr….An Inconvenient Truth) was the whole basis for his “documentary”. The “findings” of the IPCC, the proposed cap and trade, the Kyoto protocols were all about curbing the production of CO2!!!
Wow, cory, when you lie you tell whoppers! Or are you just that misinformed?
So, what’s next? Denying your claim or are you going to try and weasel out of it again?
To clarify cory, opponents of man-made global warming have cited other effects, but the left, the UN and the IPCC did not want to hear them.
Their primary focus to counter man-made global warming was a tax on CO2, purchasing carbon credits and other such scams.
Again, you need some new talking points and stop regurgitating massive lies.
RetiredSpookOctober 22, 2011 / 9:48 am
One of the factors driving the surge in our stock market this past week was optimism that a EU summit this weekend would result in a plan to solve the European sovereign debt crisis. This article doesn’t do much to shore up that optimism. Could be a roller-coaster ride in the global financial markets next week.
RetiredSpookOctober 22, 2011 / 10:22 am
Here’s and interesting commentary by Anthony Watts on the Berkeley papers referenced by Cory. IIRC, data from Watts’ Surface Stations project was used in the Berkeley papers.
neocon1October 22, 2011 / 11:44 am
corky still has not addressed the scientific consensus of the coming ICE age and panic of a few years back
was it fraud then? or now?
were they wrong then? or now?
how old are you corky 15?
or a short memory to go along with the short bus and short “education”
please refute the video
neocon1October 22, 2011 / 11:46 am
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, who was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970′s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) converted into a leading global warming skeptic before his death in 2008.
neocon1October 22, 2011 / 12:11 pm
Violent Islamic Extremists in Somalia Reportedly Beheaded a Christian Teen
“…effectively trying to wipe out Christianity from the country.”
the “religion” of peace and al-obummers army.
neocon1October 22, 2011 / 11:59 am
al-husseins new AmeriKKKa
TSA: Random ROAD inspections in Tennessee…
Drivers face drug checkpoints on highways in Michigan…
New Radar Can See Through Walls…
soon coming door to door for your guns.
neocon1October 22, 2011 / 12:05 pm
Stewart Slams GOP Reaction to Gadhafi’s Death: ‘What The F*** is Wrong With You?’
“Obama’s policies can’t be vindicated every day.”
back at ya johnny boy, Oh wait you are a libtard.
dbschmidtOctober 22, 2011 / 12:55 pm
More good news for those thinking of starting a business ~ try Macedonia, Rwanda, or Belarus first.
The World Bank’s annual Doing Business report ranks the ease of doing business within 183 countries based on business-friendly regulations. The formula takes into account the ease of starting a business, factoring minimum cost, time, and available capital. Which economies are fostering start-ups? Get this, entrepreneurs: While the United States ranks fourth in the over-all ease of doing business in 2011, it didn’t crack the top 10 for start-ups.
U.S. Senate – POLITICS
GOP Lawmakers Challenge White House on ‘Scientific Misconduct’
Published October 20, 201
John Holdren, Science Czar
AP
** FILE ** In this Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2007 file photo, John Holdren, professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, speaks at the Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy presentations in Pittsburgh. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)
Several Republican lawmakers are challenging the Obama administration’s science czar over what they claim are repeat incidents of “scientific misconduct” among agencies, questioning whether officials who deal with everything from endangered species to nuclear waste are using “sound science.”
The letter sent Wednesday to John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, cited four specific controversies in recent years where scientific findings were questioned. Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., rattled off a slew of questions on what they called “the apparent collapse in the quality of scientific work being conducted at our federal agencies.”
Blogs For Victory 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/21/markets-forex-idUSN1E79K0I320111021
while the senate and congress putz around…they fail to do thier duty to insure that the value of the US Dollar is upheld…this is a violation of thier oath…and a violation of thier duty to the People of the USA…
its not affiliated party wise…the treason is bi-partisan…
I posted this in response to the last blog entry, but I guess this is a more appropriate place:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071
Did you guys see that the Berkeley Earth Project, a new study run by outsiders skeptical of the world’s climatologist community and funded partially by the Koch brothers, released their results and confirmed almost exactly the the findings of the previous studies indicating global warming outside of normal cyclical change? You guys ready to explain to me how these guys were also in the evil liberals’ back pockets, or whatever your excuse was for why such a strong consensus among climatologists should be ignored?
or whatever your excuse was for why such a strong consensus among climatologists should be ignored?
Because, as was pointed out in the previous thread where you originally posted this, it’s at the bottom of most people’s priority list. That shouldn’t stop you from giving generously to the cause.
corky
I LIVED through THIS….Buffalo NY
And as I replied in the other thread (now apparently ineptly merged here), the fact that people like you have swindled the general public into thinking that global warming isn’t worth worrying about despite consensus among experts on the issue just means you’ve done a good job tricking the uninformed masses.
(now apparently ineptly merged here) Well, excuuuuuuuuuse me//Moderator
The issue is and always has been anthropogenic global warming.
The earth cools, the earth warms, always has. The warmists think humans can change that; there is no evidence that human activity has had any effect on the global temprature nor is there any evidence that it can.
“What Berkeley Earth has not done is make an independent assessment of how much of the observed warming is due to human actions, Richard Mueller acknowledged.</I” Page 2, “COOLING THE WARMING DEBATE Berkeley Earth Releases Global Land Warming Analysis”
the fact that people like you have swindled the general public into thinking that global warming isn’t worth worrying about despite consensus among experts on the issue just means you’ve done a good job tricking the uninformed masses.
ROTFLMAO!!! That is about the looniest comment I’ve ever read. The Left has spent hundreds of billions of dollars attempting to sell man-made climate change. Didn’t get much for their money, did they?
you’ve done a good job tricking the uninformed masses.
Actually, Cory, one of the earliest studies was done seven years ago by eight of the world’s leading economists. Perhaps you should contact them and ask them how there were tricked.
“The issue is and always has been anthropogenic global warming.
The earth cools, the earth warms, always has. The warmists think humans can change that; there is no evidence that human activity has had any effect on the global temprature nor is there any evidence that it can.”
No evidence? Really? Even though we can measure the heat-retaining effects of CO2 and measure the steep increase in the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, there is NO evidence? Come on. You guys were all freaking out when somebody posted an article about how some company was going to try to deliberately manipulate climate. Now you don’t believe it is even possible?
“Actually, Cory, one of the earliest studies was done seven years ago by eight of the world’s leading economists. Perhaps you should contact them and ask them how there were tricked.”
Neat, now you are citing studies that agree that global warming “must be addressed”. Have you switched sides?
Neat, now you are citing studies that agree that global warming “must be addressed”. Have you switched sides?
Don’t be a smart ass, Cory. All I was trying to show is that even folks who buy into the theory place it last in their list of priorities.
Here’s what they said:
They agreed that the three proposed solutions were poor returns on investment, but that something still needed to be done. That’s hardly in resounding agreement with the idea that global warming isn’t real, and even if it is, we should ignore it.
corky
EXPLAIN this
American mid west
T – Rex
Glaciers
Temperate
Oh riiiight; the eeeevil GWB and the Koch bros
Stuck on stupid or what?
PS kid
If you were old enough you would remember in the 1970’s the whole rage was how the earth was COOLING entering into an ice age. we would all starve to death ( enter dean scream) AYeeeeeeeeeeee !!!!
and in 2011 be ice skating on the gulf of mexico.
SUCKER!!!!!
Do you copy and paste the same drivel into every dicussion about global warming? I can’t even figure out what you are trying to say. I can link you to the Wikipedia article on the T-Rex if that’s what you are asking for?
corky
WATCH the video…….
neocon October 21, 2011 at 4:29 pm #
then get back with the answer to the scientific consensus of a few decades ago.
I already addressed that, at length, the last time there was a global warming discussion around here. You were there. I’m not really interested in repeating myself for somebody who is incapable of even remembering where the conversation went last time.
corky
okay; for someone who has no imagination or comprehension.
EXACT SAME geographical area
T – Rex = TROPICAL climate
GLACIERS = FROZEN climate
Temperate = moderate climate
THINGS CHANGE ………WITHOUT man’s intervention.
Imagine that!!
corky
typical lib drone answer,
REFUTE the scientific consensus of a couple decades ago, or look like a LOON flailing his arms wildly in the ai ,with spittle running down his chin screaming the KOCH brothers over and over.
Did you just get back from OWS??
I’ve not been to an occupy anything protest. Feel free to keep trying to figure out whose “drone” I am, though.
are you that conceited that you actually think we give a shxt about whose drone you are stooge….
corky
the “OTHER” thread was about abortion, do try to keep up DUMMY!
CorySucker
Bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha
was that “ONE is Born every minute” ?
‘Fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, by prominent scientists and throughout the media’
Tuesday, October 06, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Despite many claims to the contrary, the 1970’s global cooling fears were widespread among many scientists and in the media. Despite the fact that there was no UN IPCC organization created to promote global cooling in the 1970s and despite the fact that there was nowhere near the tens of billions of dollars in funding spent today to promote man-made global warming, fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media.
Newsweek Magazine even used the climate “tipping point” argument in 1975. Newsweek wrote April 28, 1975 article: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”
But on October 24, 2006, Newsweek admitted it erred in predicting a coming ice age in the 1970’s. (NYT: Obama’s global warming promoting science czar Holdren ‘warned of a coming ice age’ in 1971 – September 29, 2009 & also see: NASA warned of human caused coming ‘ice age’ in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007 and also see: 1975 New York Times: “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing, Major Cooling May Be Ahead”, May 21, 1975 and see: 1974 Time Magazine: “Another Ice Age,” June 24, 1974
A Small Sampling of 1970’s Reports Warning of Global Cooling:
National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age in 1975
Excerpt: “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” – Newsweek – April 28, 1975 “The Cooling World”
NASA warned of human caused coming ‘ice age’ in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007
Excerpt: “The world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,” read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: “In the next 50 years” — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.” If sustained over “several years, five to 10,” or so Mr. Rasool estimated, “such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
New York Times: Obama’s global warming promoting science czar Holdren ‘warned of a coming ice age’ in 1971 – September 29, 2009 – By John Tierney – Excerpt: In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren’t the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can’t think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. (See also: Obama Science ‘Czar’ John Holdren’s 1971 warning: A ‘New Ice Age’ likely – September 23, 2009)
1977 book “The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age” – CIA Feared Global Cooling – Excerpt: In the early 1970s, top CIA thinkers concluded that changing weather was “perhaps the greatest single challenge that America will face in coming years”. As a result they ordered several studies of the world’s climate, the likely changes to come and their probably effect on America and the rest of the world. The studies conclude that the world is entering a difficult period during which major climate change (further cooling) is likely to occur. That is the consensus of the Central intelligence Agency, which highlights the fact that we are overdue for a new ice age. Many climatologists believe that since the 1960s, the world has been slipping towards a new ice age. ….the evidence suggests that change will be a return to a climate that was dominant from the seventeenth century to about 1850. Soviet weatherman Mikhail Budyko believes that 1 2.8F drop in the average global temperature would start glaciers on the march. If the temperature should fall by another 0.7F, it could usher in a ninety-thousand year tyranny if ice and snow.
1975 Newsweek: “The Cooling World,” Newsweek. April 28, 1975 By Peter Gwynne
Excerpt: The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. […] The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” […] Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.
Professor Stephen Schneider converted from warning of a coming ice age in the 1970s to promoting of man-made global warming fears today. In the 1970s Professor Stephen Schneider was one of the leading voices warning the Earth was going to experience a catastrophic man made ice-age. However he is now a member of the UN IPCC and is a leading advocate warning that the Earth is facing catastrophic global warming. In 1971, Schneider co-authored a paper warning of a man-made “ice age.” See: Rasool S., & Schneider S.”Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141 – Excerpt: ‘The rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” Schneider was still promoting the coming “ice age” in 1978. (See: Unearthed 1970’s video: Global warming activist Stephen Schneider caught on 1978 TV show ‘In Search Of…The Coming Ice Age’ – September 20, 2009) By the 1980’s, Schneider reversed himself and began touting man-made global warming. See: “The rate of [global warming] change is so fast that I don’t hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems,” Schneider said on UK TV in 1990.
1975 New York Times: “Climate Changes Called Ominous,”, June 19, 1975 – Harold M. Schmeck, – p. 31. Excerpt: “The most drastic potential change considered in the new report is an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that governed the planet’s climate for the past 10,000 years. […] The report also noted that periods of benign climate comparable to the present are unusual and have existed for about 8 percent of the last 700,000 years.”
1974 New York Times: “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output,”, August 8, 1974 – Harold M. Schmeck – p. 35. Excerpt: A recent meeting of climate experts in Bonn, West Germany, produced the unanimous conclusion that the change in global weather patterns pose a severe threat to agriculture that could lead to major crop failures and mass starvation. […] The drop [in global temps] since the 1940s has only been half a degree, but some scientists believe this is enough to trigger changes that could have important effects on the world’s weather and agriculture.
1975 New York Times: “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing, Major Cooling May Be Ahead”, May 21, 1975 – By Walter Sullivan – Excerpt: Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable. Hints that is may already begun are evident. The drop in mean temperatures since 1950 in the Northern Hemisphere has been sufficient, for example, to shorten Britain’s growing season for crops by two weeks.
1974 Time Magazine: “Another Ice Age,” June 24, 1974 – Excerpt: However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. […] Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth. […] Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.
Newsweek admitted it erred in reporting on predictions of a coming ice age in the 1970’s – October 24, 2006 – Excerpt: It took 31 years, but Newsweek magazine admitted it was incorrect about climate change. In a nearly 1,000-word correction, Senior Editor Jerry Adler finally agreed that a 1975 piece on global cooling “was so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future.” Even then, Adler wasn’t quite willing to blame Newsweek for the incredible failure. “In fact, the story wasn’t ‘wrong’ in the journalistic sense of ‘inaccurate,’” he claimed. “Some scientists indeed thought the Earth might be cooling in the 1970s, and some laymen – even one as sophisticated and well-educated as Isaac Asimov – saw potentially dire implications for climate and food production,” Adler added. However, the story admitted both Time magazine and Newsweek were wrong on the subject – Newsweek as recently as 1992.
Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, a prominent critic of the man-made global warming fears today, recalls how pervasive the coming ice age scare was when he was in graduate school. “When I was going to graduate school, it was gospel that the Ice Age was about to start. I had trouble warming up to that one too. This (greenhouse) is not the first climate apocalypse, but it’s certainly the loudest,” Michaels said.
1970: First Earth Day Promoted Ice Age Fears – Excerpt: At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1970, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”
1976 Book: “The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun” By Lowell Ponte – Excerpt: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”
Earth Day 1970: Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling: “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, who was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) converted into a leading global warming skeptic before his death in 2008. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms “sky is falling” man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. (LINK)
Fire and Ice: Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming,” Business and Media Institute, By R. Warren Anderson, Dan Gainor, Dan (2006) – Excerpt: The media have warned about impending climate doom four different times in the last 100 years. Only they can’t decide if mankind will die from warming or cooling.
1978: “Trends and Variations of Mean Temperature in the Lower Troposphere,” AMS Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 106, No. 3 (March), pp. 413-416. – Harley, W. S.
1971: “The Effect of Atmospheric Aerosols on Climate with Special Reference to Temperature near the Earth’s Surface.” J. Applied Meteorology 10: 703-14. – Mitchell, J. Murray, Jr.
Mitchell, J. Murray, Jr. (1975). “A Reassessment of Atmospheric Pollution as a Cause of Long-Term Changes of Global Temperature.” In Global Effects of Environmental Pollution, edited by S. Fred Singer. Dordrecht: Reidel.
That appears to be a pretty convincing study, Cory. First, why do you supposed it is that economic study after economic study shows that, in a list of global priorities, global warming always comes in at or near the bottom? Second, seeing as how concerned you are, I assume you have allocated a significant portion of your discretionary income to helping combat the problem of climate change — right? If not, why not?
JR check out the video
talk about a flip flop
follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
neocon,
Yes, please follow the money. Please go to the finance page for this study and let me know who paid for this study.
ALGORE the divinity degree dropout and his mind numbed robots?
Nope, not on the list. Try again.
More than half the money comes from the US Department of Energy.
“More than half the money comes from the US Department of Energy.”
Nope. The were the single biggest contributer, but not by a lot. Certainly not more than half, at least according to the financial page of the project.
The “project” is part of a Department of Energy contract totaling more than $16.0 Million. The “study” is part of the award; as such the contract portion only lists the actual dollar award and not the institutional support received from the contract; this is called indirect costs associated with the study. Direct cash award so far has been $188,0000 with the bulk of support coming in the form of pay and benefit support and facilities support for the researchers as indicated by the statement; “many of the participants work for Berkeley Lab”
follow the MONEY $$$$$$$$$$
2009-10-12: Billionaire investor George Soros. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP Billionaire financier and philanthropist has pledged to invest more than $1bn (£625m) of his own money in clean technology to tackle . Speaking in Copenhagen on Saturday evening, the Hungarian-born Soros also announced the foundation of the Climate Policy Initiative, which he will fund with $10m annually for the… more »
Cory needs new talking points: “despite consensus among experts”
Uh, this has been posted here before and not surprisingly ignored by the leftist drones.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/new-nasa-data-challenges-global-warming-alarmism
In short, the climate models that have been used by your so-called “experts”, the UN and the Goreacle himself were FAULTY!
Plus let us not forget the revealing emails where huge assumptions were made, unreliable sources cited, etc. etc.
You need new talking points drone. Yours has been debunked months ago.
Another observation, no matter how many times this has been asked no one has been able to cite a source that has revealed what the “normal” temperature of the planet is. Are we warming above it? Or, are we warming to it?
Don’t bother citing Gore’s hockey stick model…. This too has been debunked since the rise in temperature PRECEDED the measured increase in CO2 by 800 years.
So, what will be your excuse now? You didn’t say it…. or… that is not what I meant but I did say it before I didn’t???
Time to crank up the spin machine, cory.
“The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 15 preexisting data archives. ”
in other words…trash in…trash out…
they are trying to use the same false informational databases to get different answers…and that fails to address the core faults of the existing “peer reviewed” lies that the global warming is real…
ANOTHER LIE FROM CORYSTOOGE
do you EVER PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR BUTT BEFORE YOU THINK cory?
your berkeley BS line is nothing but spin on defective information that makes it USELESS…
just for show…
the reason the libtards ONLY USE 200 years of information on thier lies…is because that was a low point in global temp after the global temp fell…this was the middle of the mini ice age that began around 1k and ends shortly after 1700AD…they dont like us looking at the massive fluctuation in temps that is demonstrated where the temps rise from 200AD continuously through 1000AD…only to drastically drop again for 700 more years thereafter…
the lies are easy to spot if you just use common sense and the WHOLE TRUTH isnt that hard to find…
corystooge is a pure librard in a real sense…they have kept him/her in the dark…and all they feed him/her is sh**t…
What, so now the argument has shifted from “Global Warming isn’t real” to “We’ve already convinced the public that isn’t real, so too bad, we’ve won”? Congratulations on tricking people into working towards possibly catastrophic global climate change, I guess?
What, so now the argument has shifted from “Global Warming isn’t real” to “We’ve already convinced the public that isn’t real, so too bad, we’ve won”?
No, Cory, I think that just how people like you perceive it. In reality, GW has been a low global priority for years. And I can’t recall EVER seeing anyone on this blog argue that the planet hasn’t warmed in the last century. There is near universal agreement on that.
Really, the Koch brothers donated to this study because they believed that it would confirmed what they already knew, that the previous studies which have been repeatedly attacked (climategate anybody? I know you’ve had blog posts here about climategate, which was about one of the studies that this one mirrors) were right? That’s your answer?
corky
Really, the Koch brothers donated
END of story, any thing else is BDS and BS
Really, the Koch brothers donated to this study because they believed that it would confirmed what they already knew, that the previous studies which have been repeatedly attacked
Cory,
You have this paranoid and unhealthy obsession with the Koch Brothers. I don’t know anyone here who is a fan of or apologist for the Koch Brothers. Anyone here believe everything the Koch Brothers have a hand in funding? Anyone here believe this is the first time someone funded a study and didn’t get the result they were looking for? Anyone here believe this study is the final, definitive answer on this topic? More importantly, does anyone here give a rat’s ass if it is?
Actually, it was the Charles G. Koch Charitible Foundation that donated $150,000 as an “unrestricted educational grant“. Unrestricted donors have no say in how the funds are used, the research done, how it’s conducted or what is published as a result.
The Evile Koch Brothers had nothing to do with this.
You see, because the Berkeley Earth Surface is a cooperative extension of the Lawrence – Berkeley Labs; part of the Department of Energy and Administered by the University of California, Berkeley.
Seriously?
Another government run academic institution, dependent on government resources confirming what other government run and government dependent academic institutions have already published, and this is news why?
The Unrestricted Educational Grant was given specifically to this project. Sure, they couldn’t influence anything directly, but the fact that the money was committed at all is a pretty solid indication of what they were hoping to get from the study, and that all of their money was going towards funding the study. What you are saying is that it wouldn’t be indicative of anything if Phillip Morris contributed money to a study to determine whether smoking was bad for you because they did it in the form of an unrestricted educational grant.
but the fact that the money was committed at all is a pretty solid indication of what they were hoping to get from the study, and that all of their money was going towards funding the study.
Cory,
See Claudius’ comment at 5:10
What exactly do you think I was replying to? The grant was not given to Berkley. It was given specifically to this study. It was given so as to avoid indications of undue direct influence, but that doesn’t change WHY it was given.
No cory, Berkeley Lab requested a grant as part of the project noted above; Charles Koch Foundation issued an educational grant to Lawrence Berkeley Lab to further the educational opportunity the study would promote. The Grant application specified unrestricted; that’s the choice of the grantee not the grantor.
I don’t understand your point here; the evile Koch Brothers donated to the most left-wing lab at the most left-wing university in the most left-wing state and expected … what in return?
Could it be the Foundation was issuing a grant requested to further education by a credible institution that has not completed its study expecting to further our understanding of a complex issue? Or do you think they’re really liberals at heart and wanted to get a result they could slap on a bumper sticker and parade around Wall Street?
The only thing they expected in return was to get the results of the study already in progress. The fact that they donated merely is indicative of their opinion on the likely outcome of the study, and therefore the general disposition of the researchers. Or, in other words, the Koch Foundation thought it did not have a significant liberal bias.
Uh, you realize youi’re not making any sense, right?
you seem to have a lot of words that come from the Koch bro’s corystooge…
you dont fool me…you have no clue what the Kochs intent was when they donated money to berkeley, you have no clue what the money was originally tagged for…you have no clue if the statements you attribute to the Koch bro’s are accurate…as a matter of fact…when you have your head stuffed up your beehind so far like you do…you have no clue period…end of story
No dummy
watch the video then get back to us with your assessment.
mine is, there is one born every minute (sucker)
Incidentally, Cory; the interesting dynamic in the article I linked to is this:
You can read this two ways, I guess. (1) global warming is more of a political issue than a scientific issue; and (2) Democrats are more concerned than Republicans about saving the planet — well, at least 43% are, while Independents are more or less ambivalent.
Ooooooooo Noooooooo Mr Billllllllllllll
were ALL gonna DIE!!!!!!!!!!
Oh WAIT!!
====================================================
1970: First Earth Day Promoted Ice Age Fears – Excerpt: At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1970, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”
====================================================
1976 Book: “The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun” By Lowell Ponte – Excerpt: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”
===================================================
Earth Day 1970: Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling: “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”
=====================================================
Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.
“Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?
” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added
tricking people…lol…from a mental midget that presents lies to a “integrity” filled stooge…
flush it corystooge…you lost…this whole claptrap you are pulling is dreams of grandeur made up by soros and the extremely wealthy to capitalize on the public’s good will by creating a crisis that DOES NOT EXIST…
whats it like in there…you have your head stuck so far up your beehind that you actually pretend that you are just a regular person…you really dont see how stupid your arguement is…clue in stooge…your trash is still…trash
We are all DOOMED!!!! DOOOOOOMMMMMEEDDD!!! I tell ya. Better get you Ice cave fortress deck out for the comingcold wave. I just hope Al Gore doesnt visit central Illinois this winter, we get enough snaow as it is. Don’t think I could hadle great lake snow.
Kinda hard to dig out 5 foot snow drifts. Don’t even want to think about those 10 footers. 😛
GMB
we are (snow) skiing here in Fla as we speak.
Oh Wait
the A/C is turned down.
GMB
Our first son was conceived during that blizzard, had lots of food, beer, and a 7 day curfew 🙂
Neo, LOL. I’ll have to see those “Ski Florida” Advertisements. Don’t count it out though, Al, Billion Dollar Baby” Gore might just visit. I wouldn’t wish that on you but you never know. 😛
GMB
I used to wonder how the younger people could be duped into socialist communism,and the likes of AGW which is another one of those frauds with a re searchable history.
Kids brought up in broken homes, “taught” by left wing loon ideologues, with political agendas like catspuke and (lessor ) baldork are part of the answer.
The phrase “save the planet” is even too cartoonish for my 6yo grandson.
it is like 100 people eating beans and standing on the beach to turn a cat 5 hurricanes with gas power.
yet these OWS Klowns buy into this nonsense.
GMB,
Would you settle for ski Terre Haute (Indiana, that is)?
Ski Terra Haute!! It’s all the rage!!
Been down south of there near the Kentucky border skiing before. Near Paoli. Not bad skiing and the people are a lot friendlier than out west.
Maybe Ill go try the slopes in Iowa this year. 🙂
Maybe Ill go try the slopes in Iowa this year.
Iowa doesn’t have anywhere near the cornfield grooming equipment that Terre Haute has. Just sayin’.
I am not going to say anything bad about theKoch Brothers, I got my check for this month, did you? 😛
GMB
a BIG bonus, and a nekked pic of bwany fwank and the Mooch.
OK Guys
BBB time….
Buds, Beer, Bees (applebees)
AMF until tomorrow, unless the floods wash us away and we burn to death from AGW
Yeah sure Neo, just go ahead and add to the pollution, driving some gas hog that produces about as carbon as Owl Bores jet. Planet Hater ! 😛
So does anyone want to make a bet on whether or not bams will declare a “national emergency” before the elections?
I’ll put a six pack of you favorite beverage that he will on it.
I don’t recall if we’re at a 6 pack or a case. By national emergency I’m assuming you are not talking about something like a blizzard but something more militaristic. If you are thinking along the lines of the later I’ll go double or nothing. Bams don’t have the courage to declare an emergency.
He’s finally going to bring the troops home to keep the naive young people from defecting to the GOP. That’s another easy prediction which has come to pass.
Are the Illini going to roll over again this weekend? Just when I pointed out the 6-0 start they had to choke.
Thanks Bardolf! Just when my negativity was going away you had to say somethin.
As far as what I owe you it is at a six pack. You need to privide me a address.
College Don that goes by Bardolf
Somewhere in Lincoln, Ne
xxxxx
Doesnt cut it as an address
Ask Matt or Leo to send my email addy and I’ll be glad to arrange delivery of your beer 🙂
Bams doesnt need courage, i am sure the mooch will provide it for him.
President for Life!! All Hail BhO
GMB
I’m still angling to give a talk at urbana champaign in the distant future. If it happens I’ll make you sit in the audience and provide the beverages!
What subject? Pole sitting, basket weaving, or advanced cheerleader oogling? 😛
GMB
From 6-0 to 6-2.
Cool, I’ll take that bet; my “favorite beverage” is Macallan Scotch (25 Year).
For six of those I’ll take a chance that Obama will put on a sun-dress and sing Tip-Toe through the Tulips in the Rose Garden with Barney Frank playing a kazoo.
Images of Tiny Tim seered into my brain. Scarred for life I tell you.
with Barney Frank playing a kazoo.
dont know whether to laugh or puke.
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers
Bingo!
Describes obAMATEUR’s self-proclaimed “flawless” administration to the letter! After all according to him, he has made all the correct decisions and it is someone else’s fault that the economy is doing so poorly. It must be all those ATMs keeping banks from hiring tellers, the earthquake, the Arab spring, or other reason he outlined a couple of months ago…..
He is now reaching out to those that are least capable of producing you know those who are occupying Wall Street using the typical class warfare, since he and his fellow democrats are running away from his record.
“Four more years” is not going to cut it.
LOL!! A new word.
It has been reported that T. Coddington Van Vorhees VII is now seeking the republican nomination. We are saved !!!! 😛
Our young friend, Cory, has abused the First Rule of Holes more than anyone in recent memory.
“Our young friend, Cory, has abused the First Rule of Holes more than anyone in recent memory.”
You always seem to say that when you’ve been completely outclassed in an argument, as you were here against cory.
Gee wally, I know you drones have to stick together, but really?
Cory’s responses were countered at every turn.
For example, he states that CO2 was not the main cause of AGW. But all treaties, legislation and “taxes” are aimed at “reducing” its output. Cory’s “arguments” are all over the place, when one talking point is shot down, he moves on to the next one.
At least think for yourself, drone, before you chime in with the liberal echo chamber.
Pathetic.
“when one talking point is shot down, he moves on to the next one.”
Yup, that’s exactly how you and spook operated here. You tried to exhaust cory with a game of talking points whack-a-mole, but because cory has the facts on his side and you do not (and because you and spook are, by and large, scientifically illiterate), you failed at that and he was easily able to prove you wrong at every turn. Hence spook’s special little admission of failure.
You, however, aren’t smart enough to know when you’ve been beaten, as I’ve certainly learned from experience, so you just keep right on with the talking points, but the mindless repetition of talking points is the only thing at which you’ve shown any aptitude whatsoever, so your options are extremely limited.
Gee wally, I see you have the same reading comprehension problem from which many of you drones suffer.
Cory’s “whack-a-mole” talking points as you put it were debunked each time. The basis for his talking points and the whole anti-CO2 agenda has been proven faulty. Each time he shifted positions and arguments and each time he was shot down (no reference to violence there).
Yet, you continue with your inane and senseless repetition (regurgitation) of utter lies due to your lack of reading comprehension.
Thanks for playing, drone. You lost again…..
Yeah, you’re right Wally. I was just completely outclassed. I’m not sure how I will ever recover from the intellectual beating you and Cory have given me. I guess your work here is done.
Nah, Cory did all the work–you know, presenting the facts, pointing out the obvious flaws with your barrage of talking points. I just enjoyed the show, and I’m looking forward to repeat performances as I am very confident you will mouth the same discredited arguments every time this subject is raised.
Spook, that doesnt translate well into my mother tounge. Do you mean he should dig faster or slower?
Neither; he should have stopped digging a long time ago.
Well, now that Libya is done, where will bams start his next war? Any guesses?
it has already begun …flash mobs and OWS
The increase in CO2. . which historically happens AFTER – significantly after – the increase in temperature itself?
And, as TireofLibs noted last night, a recent peer-reviewed study calls into question the assumptions of the climate models WRT feedbacks.
It calls into question the magnitude of some effects, not the base assumptions. There is always an argument to be made that our scientists might be wrong on how quickly the effects of our pollution are going to cause major damage, but if that ends up being the game you want to play, you are just saying that global warming effects are real and you want to just gamble and hope that we run out of oil and coal before we cause catastrophe.
“ out of oil and coal before we cause catastrophe.”
There is no documented cause and effect.
cory: “assumptions”.
Wow, cory, did you miss that you did not use the word “facts”?
The hysteria of the left (and yours) are based on those erroneous climate models. Yet, you are going to continue to perpetuate those “assumptions” without any discriminatory thought.
Well, you are a drone after all, regurgitating mindless dumbed down talking points.
plants thrive in high nitrogen environments…when plants thrive…they manufacture oxygen…so…define the term “significantly after”…
is this the best ya got stooge?
Yes
along with leftist BS, bad breath and sheer stupidity.
Here’s a pretty solid explanation of why that argument isn’t really what you think it is:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
The short of it is that the lag is already accounted for long term climate models. CO2 is not the initial cause of the warming events (nobody ever made the claim that CO2 is the only causal factor in temperature change), but during the course of natural warming events, CO2 gets released into the atmosphere because of warming, which in turn causes the warming event to be warmer than it otherwise would have been. It’s a complicated issue that you and I (and politicians whose training is in law or business) don’t have the background to analyze as an expert on the subject would.
It’s also worth noting that we’re on fairly new ground here. We have more CO2 in our atmosphere than we’ve had at any time in hundreds of thousands of years.
more BS…ssdd in other words…the only thing that can be verified is that the writter of your article does not know…he keeps grasping at un-named variables as a cause that…are not founded in scientific fact…
is this the best ya got stooge?
Again cory regurgitates mindless talking points: “The short of it is that the lag is already accounted for long term climate models.”
Again, the climate models have been proven faulty (refer to the post above).
Then cory puts revisionism into overdrive: “(nobody ever made the claim that CO2 is the only causal factor in temperature change)”
Really?
The hockey stick graph in Algore’s A Convenient Lie (errr….An Inconvenient Truth) was the whole basis for his “documentary”. The “findings” of the IPCC, the proposed cap and trade, the Kyoto protocols were all about curbing the production of CO2!!!
Wow, cory, when you lie you tell whoppers! Or are you just that misinformed?
So, what’s next? Denying your claim or are you going to try and weasel out of it again?
To clarify cory, opponents of man-made global warming have cited other effects, but the left, the UN and the IPCC did not want to hear them.
Their primary focus to counter man-made global warming was a tax on CO2, purchasing carbon credits and other such scams.
Again, you need some new talking points and stop regurgitating massive lies.
One of the factors driving the surge in our stock market this past week was optimism that a EU summit this weekend would result in a plan to solve the European sovereign debt crisis. This article doesn’t do much to shore up that optimism. Could be a roller-coaster ride in the global financial markets next week.
Here’s and interesting commentary by Anthony Watts on the Berkeley papers referenced by Cory. IIRC, data from Watts’ Surface Stations project was used in the Berkeley papers.
corky still has not addressed the scientific consensus of the coming ICE age and panic of a few years back
was it fraud then? or now?
were they wrong then? or now?
how old are you corky 15?
or a short memory to go along with the short bus and short “education”
please refute the video
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, who was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970′s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) converted into a leading global warming skeptic before his death in 2008.
Violent Islamic Extremists in Somalia Reportedly Beheaded a Christian Teen
“…effectively trying to wipe out Christianity from the country.”
the “religion” of peace and al-obummers army.
al-husseins new AmeriKKKa
TSA: Random ROAD inspections in Tennessee…
Drivers face drug checkpoints on highways in Michigan…
New Radar Can See Through Walls…
soon coming door to door for your guns.
Stewart Slams GOP Reaction to Gadhafi’s Death: ‘What The F*** is Wrong With You?’
“Obama’s policies can’t be vindicated every day.”
back at ya johnny boy, Oh wait you are a libtard.
More good news for those thinking of starting a business ~ try Macedonia, Rwanda, or Belarus first.
The World Bank’s annual Doing Business report ranks the ease of doing business within 183 countries based on business-friendly regulations. The formula takes into account the ease of starting a business, factoring minimum cost, time, and available capital. Which economies are fostering start-ups? Get this, entrepreneurs: While the United States ranks fourth in the over-all ease of doing business in 2011, it didn’t crack the top 10 for start-ups.
http://www.inc.com/ss/9-best-countries-start-business-right-now#0
U.S. Senate – POLITICS
GOP Lawmakers Challenge White House on ‘Scientific Misconduct’
Published October 20, 201
John Holdren, Science Czar
AP
** FILE ** In this Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2007 file photo, John Holdren, professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, speaks at the Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy presentations in Pittsburgh. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)
Several Republican lawmakers are challenging the Obama administration’s science czar over what they claim are repeat incidents of “scientific misconduct” among agencies, questioning whether officials who deal with everything from endangered species to nuclear waste are using “sound science.”
The letter sent Wednesday to John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, cited four specific controversies in recent years where scientific findings were questioned. Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., rattled off a slew of questions on what they called “the apparent collapse in the quality of scientific work being conducted at our federal agencies.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/19/gop-lawmakers-challenge-white-house-on-scientific-misconduct/#ixzz1bcH7uze6