1) “Heckuva job, Brownie.”

2) “Mission accomplished.”

3) “Fool me once…shame on…shame on you. Fool me you can’t get fooled again.”

Get off your butt, exercise, take your meds faithfully, and eat right. You have to be pro-active if you’re going to recover.
Aren’t you glad you have healthcare coverage? Can you imagine what it would be like if you didn’t? How much would you have to pay out just for your meds?

When you were taking your nap, granny. The first two were Afghanistan and Iraq – more announcements later.

Something else must be masking it too Cosmos, as temps continue to cool as CO2 goes up.
——————–

Temperatures are not cooling. And aerosols can cause considerable cooling — note the influence of Mt Pinatubo, and other eruptions.

Okay. . . so you are NOT able to understand the difference between cause, and “observed”.

You seem to enjoy appearing foolish, by proving that you don’t know what’s in the report you attack.

And you also don’t seem to understand the difference between science and baseball.

“Very likely” is not a lock. It was very likely that the Yankees would have made the playoffs this year too.

Have you even read the scientific reports that you attack?
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Regular,

I hope that you’re recovering from your recent stroke.
——————————-
Thanks, I think.

It will take anywhere from 3 months to a year I am told, if I don’t’ have more strokes.
==============================================
Now, back to your science qualifications cosmos.

What makes you more qualified on science than any other the other bloggers?

How about what research you have done, where you have studied, what papers you have participated in and what degrees you have completed.

If you won’t give them here, then you have no basis to challenge any else on the blog with their credentials in discussing science at the most rudimentary level (which is what is done here at the blog.)

I hope that you’re recovering from your recent stroke.

Count him as one supporting the 10% chance that the UN report gives for GW not being man made.

I’ve seen longer odds come in.
———————-

outlander, do you not understand the difference between cause and “observed”?

“Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic human-caused greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Where “very likely” is > 90%.

And aerosols are masking some warming that AGW would otherwise be causing

cosmos claims superior knowledge in science, yet refuses to give any background to his education or in particular, his training in science.

It’s really interesting to listen to all the blog (cough) scientists, none who knows what it takes to do calibrations for experimentation or to set up a protocol to make an experiment valid for publishing.

Perhaps cosmos will give us some insight into his qualification using pressure transducers and subsequent recording methods on magnetic tape, strip chart recording or other types of digital media.

Then cosmos could explain the discrete functions of Fourier analysis as it applies to interpreting digital data.

cosmos talks a good game, but can he back it up?

(expects a full fledged personal attack with nothing of substance from cosmos and just more excuses why he won’t qualify himself on his so-called superior status in the science community)

Let’s see what you got fluff-boy.

You affirmed the ignorant arrogance of Obama.

We said something that made ‘em cry.

We pointed out their ignorant arrogance and now they want their binkie.

I understand what science is. Why do you feel the need to say such deragatory things about me?

I thought you were above that? I thought you were better than that?

Appears not.

I’ve seen longer odds come in.

Because you are a generally disagreeable, not very bright person who posted something stupid?

It is my opinion that based on the data we are not causing the type of Global Warming that many are so worried about.
—————————-

And all that you have is your opinion, Dennis Avery’s opinion, Steven Milloy’s opinion, etc.

Nathaniel does not have any credible science to support his opinion.

Good nite.

Instead of addressing the substance of your posts okobserver, they choose to attack you instead.

Since we are so concerned about logic now, right Political Mama?

You see, according to Linda, my opinions on AGW are just as good as the scientists.

Why did I deserve the personal attacks because I contributed to the thread?

What is the left not getting here?

Just let me know when AGW science is “reproducible, obervable, and tested”

So far, we have a bunch of scientists giving us their “opinions” on what is going to happen based on the evidence at hand.

Remember our example earlier?

It is my opinion that based on the data we are not causing the type of Global Warming that many are so worried about.

According to you, my opinion is just as valid.