“If you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing,” columnist Paul Krugman wrote about House members who voted against the cap-and-trade legislation (which included Kansas’ three GOP House members). “What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.” In addition to being wrong about science, opposing lawmakers also misrepresented the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low, Krugman wrote.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- Phantom on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
108 Comments
Krugman
“And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.”
————–
Isn’t Krugman a dandy?
One could just as easily say that the “warmers” chicken little approach is “treason against families” because of the damage cap and trade will do to the economy. And based on climate modeling that has been consistent in only one aspect. Consistently wrong.
The debate still rages over the question of man’s impact on the Earth. But to read Krugman you would think that everyone who disagreed with him was simply in denial. The vote was close to 50-50.
What the vote says to me is this: 50% of US House members think that spending trillions of dollars based on computer projections that have never been accurate in their predictions is a wise think to do. The other 50% have some common sense.
Krugman’s wrong about which side of the vote is playing politics.
“What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth.”
What I saw was a bunch of people voting on a bill they had not read; therefore, a bunch of people voting “yes” when they knew nothing about what they were voting for. (A not so smart move in my books.)
If Ann Raynd predicted the repubs would come this close to destroying capitalism, I may give her a read.
Wrong thread, oh well.
Why do Democrats ALWAYS think they can buy our way out of a problem.
With the middle class tax money….
biased1
Posted July 2, 2009 at 7:41 am | Permalink
Why do Democrats ALWAYS think they can buy our way out of a problem.
With the middle class tax money….
_________________________________________________
OK which is it? The rich pay the majority of taxes or the middle class?
Make up your mind.
Here is the dishonesty in your precious ‘Global Warming’ hysteria Brownlee.
Talk about dishonesty, talk about being simply political and not science, talk about the horrible abrogation of their fiduciary duty to the country in the present administration.
“The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”
The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”
The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be an independent review process inside a federal agency–and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.
Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. “It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else,” Carlin said. “That was obviously coming from higher levels.”
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html
Because politicians (on BOTH sides) are perfectly incapable of viewing an issue based on complete information. They refuse to answer simple questions like:
1. If the global energy market is a multi-trillion $ pot of gold, and business folk are nothing but greedy narcissists…why is it again they haven’t developed a “green” alt that could capture that market all for themselves vs having to compete with nations & other companies for fossil fuels? According to Obama…they’ve just been waiting on “leadership” and “guidance from legislators”…yeah…that’s it…
2. Remind me again…who is it that pays for all these green subsidies required just to make green alts (ethanol, wind, solar, etc) ALMOST economic relative to fossil fuels/nuke? I stress “pays” because alts require being PAID, while fossil fuels/nukes actually pay taxes themselves…so mandating more of what we have to PAY FOR does what the budget/deficit/nat’l debt again?? Did I miss something in terms of the fed govt being flush with cash now…or is it in the red $38T for Medicare, $15T for SS, $11T for nat’l debt, $6T for fed employee/military pensions & $1.8T just in this year’s budget???
3. How many kilowatts do we import from Saudi Arabia?? Because according to politicians, windmills are going to replace SA oil imports…remind me again how many crude bbls generate electricity here…huh, weird…none. But over 70% of our electricity is generated by domestically produced coal/nat gas…huh…so which gets replaced domestically produced fuels…or SA oil??
4. Can a single politican (except for maybe Ron Paul or Judd Gregg) explain how a supply stack works, or the concept of a “marginal producer”? In a global market, where oil costs the Middle East less than $10/bbl to produce..vs for example Candadian tar sands oil, which is more like $45/bbl to produce…as demand for oil falls…which one is the first producer to quit producing oil?? Weird..it would be the most expensive to produce…and also our biggest importer & ally…not the ones that our politicians claim will be shut off!
5. Since the latest spin of Cap & Tax is that it’s a “jobs bill”…help me out with where they’ve taken into their formula the domestic oil/gas/coal jobs destroyed…cuz it’s weird…they always seem to forget that part. Or maybe how it makes economic sense to spend new capital to replace sunk cost capital in already existing power generation.
More dishonesty and manipulation, or should I say mutilation, of truth by this administration:
‘White House Reporters Grill Gibbs Over ‘Prepackaged’ Questions for Obama’
“The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I’m amazed, I’m amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and you have controlled…” veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas said Wednesday.”
http://www.breitbart.tv/white-house-reporters-grill-gibbs-over-selected-questions-for-obama/
OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.
The facts are:
The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.
The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact
THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN’T EXIST.
The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science.
DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS
Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.
Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences
William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of Sciences
S. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU
Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Fellow APS
Harold W. Lewis
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of California at Santa Barbara
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study
Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS
Richard Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
End Reprint of Open Letter. #
_____________________________________________________
I breathlessly await an attack, not on the merits of the above, but personal attacks on the signing members. Go get ‘em girl.
Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for ‘erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving’ – Rebuts Myths On Sea Level, Oceans and Arctic Ice
It’s axiomatic that good satire always contains a particle of truth.
Box – yeah, kinda ironic, that in both the ABC infomercial “randomly selected crowd” and the “townhall” from yesterday….that not only would they happen to have some of the same people…that they would be the same people from places like the “Center for American Progress” (Podesta’s group)..and even more of a stroke of pure fate…they’d be ones getting to ask questions…
It’s axiomatic that good satire always contains a particle of truth.
Obama; “Okay, I need to hear this one more time! After we bankrupt the country people are still going to blame Bush….right?”
reuters
U.S. job losses accelerate, jobless rate hits 9.5%
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. employers cut 467,000 jobs in June, far more than expected, while the unemployment rate rose to 9.5 percent, the government said on Thursday in a report that showed a labor market continuing to struggle with a deep recession.
The June job losses were more than 100,000 greater than the 363,000 consensus of Wall Street economists polled by Reuters and broke a four-month trend of moderation in job losses.
Wow, ‘The One’ is certainly inspiring confidence now isn’t he…..of course it’s all Bush’s fault.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-June-payrolls-fell-467000-rb-973113280.html?x=0&.v=2
And of course like any
goodBAD democrat, Obama wants to raise everyone taxes and costs to live with ‘cap and trade’.Brownlee you and Krugman are flaming trolls.
Those who label as “deniers”, qualified scientists that question the politicized IPCC’s assertion that the debate is settled in light of recent empirical evidence showing the earth is cooling, are the “deniers” of responsible science.
The 217 members of congress, some bribed, who voted for a major multi-$billion bill without reading it, are the political hacks.
We have to have Cap and Tax to stop this sloping temperature trend. Hey, wait, which way is that line sloping???
It doesn’t work, it’s about greed – not the Environment
– customers and taxpayers pay the cost, companies pass the costs on
– carbon dioxide emissions can only be estimated, there is no other commodity like co2 that can’t be accurately measured
– regulators handed out too many free permits for political favor
in Europe, utilities companies made windfall profits by simply selling on large numbers of unneeded credits and not passing the savings on to their customers in the form of price cuts
– loopholes for key industries and pets of the environmentalists and their supporting politicians
– rural America won’t be protected under cap and trade, it will be exploited or ignored
– prices vary too widely from 20 – 80 dollars cap and trade share
It doesn’t work, in Europe using the European Commission figures, co2 emissions from the 27 member states rose by 1.9% in the first three years.
WSJ
Feynmann said: If the data don’t agree with the theory, the theory’s wrong—regardless of a widespread public desire to blame Exxon (XOM), or Chevron (CVX), or Hummers (GM) for global warming.
The observed temperature data don’t match what the model predicts. In physics (my field), we’d look at both the experiment and the data to see whether there was something wrong with the experiment’s design, or whether the data were right and the theory wrong. Either way, we’d step back and reevaluate everything. What we certainly wouldn’t do is cram 300 pages of amendments through Congress at 3:00 a.m. and force a vote the next day.
Couple of points:
• There’s little doubt there has been a
warming trend during the past 30 years.
Lots of proof of that.
• There’s much less proof humans are responsible
for it.
• Few, if any people, discuss the benefits of
global warming, such as longer growing season.
Yes, global warming can be a good thing!
• Beware of any laws contained in a 1,200-page
document written by lobbyists. Do the words
“special interests” have any meaning to you?
• Even if the this warming trend means the end
of the human race, which it doesn’t, it doesn’t
mean the end of life. Other forms of life, perhaps
more intelligent, creative and productive will most certainly evolve.
“Is cap-and-trade opposition based on politics?”
Of course it is. Why do you think the Democrats were trying to ram it through with no time for anyone to oppose it? Read it? Understand it? Allow for the American people to hear about it?
Why do you think that Pelosi had to buy off, threaten, and beat enough Democrats into supporting it?
The entire thing is based on politics and the people you are questioning are those who oppose it????
Why don’t we look at what it took to get it to barely pass?
The more sycophants like Krugman hype AGW, the less people think doing anything about it is going to amount to anything.
If voting against cap-n-trade is treason, then all of use who live and breath and occupy this planet are beyond traitors.
The rise in the use of carbon fuels actually resulted in less deforestation since wood was replaced as the primary fuel source.
CO2 is a natural byproduct of energy production. Life requires energy, so the more organisms that live, the more CO2 will be produced. Blaming an imagined future apacolypse on CO2 means that life as a whole on this planet is a threat to our planet.
Therefore, to save our planet, we all must stop living. Is Krugman willing to do his part?
Global temperatures for the past 425,000 years
Anyone else see a pattern here? Looks like warming is the least of our worries.
test
“They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.” In addition to being wrong about science, opposing lawmakers also misrepresented the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low, Krugman wrote.”
BRILLIANTLY written.
The deniers of science routinely strut their insubstantial stuff right here.
They are variously:
Invested in not changing things.
Threatened by the idea that man can actually alter the creation of an (at the least) disinterested “God”.
Just generally hard headed.
Just plain nuts.
There is not one, not ONE, questioner of established science posting this forum that I regard as even remotely credible.
Yeah Junior, we all look to you for your vast knowledge in science.
(chortles)
LOL!
Look at all of the AGW science deniers trying to refute science with their non-scientific nonsense, and unsupportable opinions.
Being found “non-credible” by someone so demonstrably gullible on the issue of Global Warming, is often taken as a compliment.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 2, 2009 at 9:45 am | Permalink
LOL!
Look at all of the AGW science deniers trying to refute science with their non-scientific nonsense, and unsupportable opinions.
———————
The topic is cap and trade, dumb @ss and it has been shown by Europe’s own commission that it has failed to reduce co2 levels, while making coal and other power companies very rich.
http://gdyn.cnn.com/1.1/1.gif
Sure opposition to Cap & Trade is based on politics.
Proponets to Cap & Trade is also based on politics.
It’s a political trick to name a Huge Tax Increase and Redistribution Plan a Climate Change Energy Bill.
It’s a Socialist Plan.
Those For & Against are For & Against Socialism.
Pure and simple.
Because this Climate Change Energy Bill does nothing to change climate or create energy.
JJ,
The link didn’t work.
Reposting the header again, since the AGW deniers here haven’t read it.
(Also see BlueJay’s 9:36 am post)
” “They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.” In addition to being wrong about science, opposing lawmakers also misrepresented the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low, Krugman wrote.”
soldevvb posted July 2, 2009 at 10:07 am
JJ,
The link didn’t work.
—————
Just like your denial of AGW science doesn’t work.
Science?
CO2 vs temps.
The theory doesn’t work either. The data proves it.
“Is cap-and-trade opposition based on politics?”
HE11 NO! It’s based upon my pocket book.
Stop reaching in and pulling out MY MONEY for your various religious causes.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 2, 2009 at 10:12 am | Permalink
soldevvb posted July 2, 2009 at 10:07 am
JJ,
The link didn’t work.
—————
Just like your denial of AGW science doesn’t work.
—————————
cosmos, the evangelical Warmer has used the ‘denier’ word again.
cosmos sounds more and more like a radical fundamentalist of the First Church of the unholy GORACLE.
” In addition to being wrong about science, opposing lawmakers also misrepresented the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which ALL suggest that the cost will be relatively low, Krugman wrote.”
————-
You’d think that a Nobel prize winning BSer like Krugman would learn not to make definitive statement when he can’t support them. Makes him a fibber.
What Obama’s Cap-And-Trade Plan Will Cost You
March 03, 2009 08:07 AM ET | James Pethokoukis | Permanent Link | Print
A study from the George C. Marshall Institute tries to quantify the costs of a cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon emissions. They’re not small, to say the least: And although this study uses 2008 as a baseline, the Obama plan would hit in 2012 and could come in combo with a hike in investment and incomes taxes for wealthier Americans and the creation of a special healthcare tax:
The authors find that the constraints posed by the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade approach is equivalent to a constant (in percentage terms) consumption decrease of about 1% each year, continuing to 2050. Put another way, the cap-and-trade approach is the equivalent of a permanent tax increase for the average American household, which was estimated to be $1,100 in 2008, would rise to $1,437 by 2015, to $1,979 in 2030, and $2,979 in 2050.
Reviewing a host of recent studies, Buckley and
Mityakov show that estimates of job losses attributable to cap-and-trade range in the hundreds of thousands. The price for energy paid by the American consumer also will rise. The studies reviewed showed electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9-145% by 2015. As an illustration, gasoline would suffer a 16 cent price increase per gallon at the low end of the estimates to a $2.58 penalty at the high end (using the January 2009 reported retail price of $1.78 per gallon).
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/03/03/what-obamas-cap-and-trade-plan-will-cost-you.html
Cap & Trade will only help Wall Street while actually hurting the environment and the working class.
LIBs are to busy being led around by the ring in their nose to realize this.
It’d be a lot easier to take the CONs seriously if they’d only own up to where all this climate-change denial “science” is coming from.
Just as with the presidential election last November, the CONs have lost. Far more, and far more-respected, scientists have looked at the data and determined burning fossil fuel is a zero-sum game.
First off, most of the developed world is short of it. Second, the people who have it aren’t that friendly to the First World. Third, even the Middle East doesn’t have an unlimited supply of dinosaurs to make new oil. Fourth, there are plenty of ways for this planet, this “Spaceship Earth,” as Buckminster Fuller called it, to create and exploit energy that won’t screw up the weather.
Climate-change deniers depend on fossil-fuel producers’ research to make their case. It’s like asking your barber if he thinks you need a haircut. It’s like going to a chiropractor for your diabetes and her recommending a back rub.
When the kid shows up and offers to mow your lawn, ask, “Do ya think it needs it?” Hell yes, the kid’ll say. That’s what the kid’s there for.
I can’t quite track down the vehemence of CONs’ rejection of anti-pollution regulations. Other than, perhaps, their personal hatred for Al Gore (who got more votes in 2000; they hate that). There’s a thin veneer of “anti-regulation” CON theology driving it, I guess. But these are the same people who griped and predicted social collapse in the 70s when we switched to unleaded gasoline.
And it’s the same argument, basically. CONs don’t like it because it’s not their idea. Or, to be more precise, because it’s some “libruhl’s” idea.
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 2, 2009 at 10:25 am | Permalink
It’d be a lot easier to take the CONs seriously if they’d only own up to where all this climate-change denial “science” is coming from.
___________________________________________________________
MSU and CRU ?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUTEMPSvsCO2May09.jpg
As per my 10:25 am post, See Monkeyhawk, BlueJay, Cosmos, etc.
When the kid shows up and offers to mow your lawn, ask, “Do ya think it needs it?” Hell yes, the kid’ll say. That’s what the kid’s there for.
________________________________________________________________
I see your point…
DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS
Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.
Sorry for the bad link.
It’s what you can’t see, that will hurt you.
Now answer this GW Alarmists:
IF Cap & Trade is based on sound science, then why is your side opposed to debating this measure for more then 3 whopping hours in the House?
Can’t you maintain your lies longer then that?
Oh wait, I get it.
Only the elitists can understand such a complex issue as Global Warming.
The Proletariat cannot be expected to understand such things. It would serve no useful purpose to have an open debate in Congress to explore this issue.
Big Brother knows what is best for all of us.
YOUR vast scientific expertise does not seem to have availed you of escaping your sister’s basement there “Regular”.
There are 3 or four divisions of deniers. YOURS is the “I’m smarter than everyone else!” wing.
MH Chimes: “Climate-change deniers depend on fossil-fuel producers’ research to make their case. It’s like asking your barber if he thinks you need a haircut. It’s like going to a chiropractor for your diabetes and her recommending a back rub.”
__________
Right…perfect analogy…what would people like Cosmos, Gore & Krugman have to talk about if it weren’t for AGW? YOU’D be a lot more “credible” if you’d admit what the motives are of your “sources”. Scientists/”academics” that live by the “publish or die” religion…weird, not much publishing money in papers that talk about how the temps gone up, the temps gone down throughout all of history…toe the agenda line and it’s grants for everyone….
Energy companies would be more than happy to quit the oil/gas business tomorrow…and OWN the global energy market…that is of course if “science” that you cherish so much as gospel, could actually create an alt that could even closely resemble fossil fuel efficiency. Besides…crude oil saved the whales! You guys should love it just for that, whales were a H of a lot closer to extinction than polar bears!
Oh goodie! Another GW debate.
Sure don’t see much of that here.
Faith in the unholy First Church of the GORACLE
Faith in Anthropogenic Warming is based in the work and teaching of Dr. James Hansen and former Vice President Al Gore (The GORACLE.) In this way, Warmers declare not to be distinguished by its faith, but by the object of its faith, it’s computer climate model pseudo science.
Warmer Faith is an act of trust or reliance on the GORACLE. Rather than being passive, Warmer faith leads to an active life of obedience, subservient to their masters (the IPCC).
It sees the mystery of the universe and the GORACLE’s disgrace and seeks to know and become obedient to the GORACLE.
Warmer Faith is not static but causes one to learn more of the False Prophet Hansen and grow, it has its origin in the unholy GORACLE.
In Warmer faith causes change as it seeks a greater understanding of the GORACLE.
Warmer Faith is blind obedience to a set of rules or statements supplied by the interfaith Websites of realclimate dot org, desmogblog and the DU.
Before the Warmer has faith, one must understand in whom and in what one has faith. With no understanding the basics of science required, there can only be true faith when blind following is joined with idol worship.
Understanding is built on the foundation of the community of non-believers: the understanding of the scriptures written by the IPCC and traditions of the Warmercommunity of believers and on personal experiences of the GORACLE.
The irony of the Warmer proselytizers is that their whole purpose is depending on a gas (co2) that they want to get rid of. This etheral existence of the elements of nature haunts their daily lives as they beat their drums and play their army of global salvation orchestra on street corners and halls of Congress alike.
And now, join in the unholy prayer of the First Church of the unholy GoRACLE, the Nothingness Mantra.
Warmer’s mantra.
Our GORACLE who art in nothing, nothing be thy name thy kingdom nothing, thy will be nothing, in nothing as it is in nothing. Give us this nothing our daily nothing and nothing us our nothing as we nothing our nothings and nothing us not into nothing but liver us from nothing; Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.
soldevvb,
It’s not my fault that you’re not smart enough to understand that CO2 is not the only climate factor.
It’s not my fault that you’re not smart enough to understand that ENSO, major volcanic eruptions, solar variations, etc cause fluctuations (”noise”) on top on the AGW “signal”
Monkeyhawk posted July 2, 2009 at 10:25 am
It’d be a lot easier to take the CONs seriously if they’d only own up to where all this climate-change denial “science” is coming from.
——————
It started with these groups and people in the late 1980’s.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html
‘The Discovery of Global Warming’
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
cosmos_originally
Posted July 2, 2009 at 10:57 am | Permalink
soldevvb,
…
It’s not my fault that your faith is too weak to admit the cooling trend. It’s not my fault you are too ignorant to understand your faith blames CO2, the climate bill this thread is about. It is not my fault you are too stupid to understand the politics of your faith.
LOL!
Look at Regular try to refute AGW science, by attacking Al Gore and Dr. Hansen.
What’s the matter Regular. . . can’t you find any science to support your denial of AGW science?
Global temperatures for the past 425,000 years
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Iceages.jpg
PSEUDOSCIENCE ON GLOBAL WARMING
http://biocab.org/Pseudoscience2.html
“And it’s the same argument, basically. CONs don’t like it because it’s not their idea. Or, to be more precise, because it’s some “libruhl’s” idea.”
______________
chimphock just proved why the science impaired “libruhls” support AGW.
soldevvb posted July 2, 2009 at 11:03 am
It’s not my fault that your faith is too weak to admit the cooling trend.
—————-
It’s not my fault that soldevvb is not smart enough to understand that AGW science has explained and predicted the observed short-term cooling trends.
La Nina’s, drops in solar intensity, and increases in aerosols cause short-term cooling trends.
It’s not my fault that soldevvb is not smart enough to understand that AGW science has explained and predicted the observed short-term cooling trends.
La Nina’s, drops in solar intensity, and increases in aerosols cause short-term cooling trends.
______________________________________________________________
OK, so copy paste the above from the IPCC report.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 2, 2009 at 11:05 am | Permalink
LOL!
Look at Regular try to refute AGW science, by attacking Al Gore and Dr. Hansen.
What’s the matter Regular. . . can’t you find any science to support your denial of AGW science?
___________
What’s the matter cosMo….. can’t you find any science to support your denial of the Second Law of Thermodynamic or Dr. Miskolzci’s study.
It’s not our fault you cover your ears and sing la la la la or can’t understand physics, mathematics, geology, meteorology, biology and the numerous other sciences that “climate science” is subservient to.
cosmos_originally
Posted July 2, 2009 at 11:05 am | Permalink
LOL!
Look at Regular try to refute AGW science, by attacking Al Gore and Dr. Hansen.
———————
No refutation of real science, I’m calling AGW a religion, which it is.
donndublin,
What has Dr. Miskolzci done recently to convince scientists worldwide that his theories are credible?
LOL!
Look at Regular call AGW science a religion, because he cannot refute AGW science.
http://biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html
Look at Regular call AGW science a religion, because he cannot refute AGW science.
LOL
And cosmo can not refute the second law of thermodynamics.
“I’m calling AGW a religion, which it is.”
No, it is not.
But it DOES challenge some of the religious. It seems to diminish their “God” for them somehow to think that human beings have GASP the power to actually damage the environment. As if there were not already AMPLE evidence of that. Better and more open minded among the faithful are increasingly realizing man’s role (faith based or otherwise) to be good stewards of this planet.
Say, I haven’t seen PalmTreesFor Sale lately!
Just wanted to say, I found a Hawaiian shirt with Palm Trees on it. I bought it after recalling your posts.
(Go to Wally World)
Act Now on Global Warming
his December 7 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will convene a 12-day meeting in Copenhagen to confront one question: How do we respond to global warming when the five-year period for reducing carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012? The U.S. was not a party to Kyoto, but if this country balks once more, Copenhagen may fail to get productive commitments from other nations as well. That’s a recipe for climate catastrophe. To show the world leaders soon to gather in Copenhagen that this country is serious about cutting its own carbon emissions, U.S. lawmakers must raise the price on the use of fossil fuels.
Yet how to do so without hurting the little guy? For many economists, a tax imposed on end users of fossil fuels is the most direct approach. A tax high enough to be useful, however, would be dead on arrival in Congress. In his campaign last fall, President Barack Obama called for a “cap and trade” plan that would auction off carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions allowances to big carbon polluters.
In many ways, though, the continuing debate over taxes versus cap and trade is beside the point. The priority is to put a price on carbon and to do so in a way that avoids the pitfalls of the largely ineffectual European efforts under Kyoto. The cap-and-trade emissions trading system (ETS) set up by the European Union issued so many free emissions allowances that the system had virtually no effect on climate. The excessive supply of allowances led to wild fluctuations in price. Some of Europe’s worst polluters collected windfall profits.
President Obama’s initial plan for a “100 percent auction” of emissions allowances would correct many of those deficiencies. The allowances would be sold, not distributed for free. The cap would be set, ideally with expert scientific consultation, to make an appropriately deep cut in total CO2 emissions. The market, working within the cap, would minimize the pain by spreading the costs. Energy providers could buy, sell and trade their allowances—and then pass their additional expenses along to their customers.
Not surprisingly, energy providers and their supporters in Congress are digging in for a fight. Unless the government issues allowances for free, they argue, consumers will face crippling price hikes. Regrettably, the administration has signaled its willingness to cave and reconsider the 100 percent auction.
There is a way, however, to keep strong price signals on fossil fuels without emptying consumers’ wallets: send the proceeds of the auction back to citizens as rebates. Energy from fossil fuels would become more expensive, as it must, yet the rebates would help offset the extra costs to consumers. Politically, that could be enough to win passage. Peter Barnes, an entrepreneur who has promoted the mechanism for years, calls it cap and dividend. (emphasis added)
More here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=act-now-on-global-warming
soldevvb posted July 2, 2009 at 11:49 am
And cosmo can not refute the second law of thermodynamics.
————
AGW science does not refute the second law of thermodynamics.
BlueJay
Posted July 2, 2009 at 10:40 am | Permalink
YOUR vast scientific expertise does not seem to have availed you of escaping your sister’s basement there “Regular”.
There are 3 or four divisions of deniers. YOURS is the “I’m smarter than everyone else!” wing.
* * * * *
You must have forgotten that McCluer claims his IQ is higher than even that of Stephen Hawking.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Stephen_Hawking’s_IQ
That’s why McCluer is making the big bucks and when not doing that he is engaged in life- improving science, and when done with that he blogs on the WE Blog.
Wait a minute, maybe I am wrong about the first two on that list.
Rage – can you explain the logic behind the last paragraph:
“There is a way, however, to keep strong price signals on fossil fuels without emptying consumers’ wallets: send the proceeds of the auction back to citizens as rebates. Energy from fossil fuels would become more expensive, as it must, yet the rebates would help offset the extra costs to consumers. Politically, that could be enough to win passage. Peter Barnes, an entrepreneur who has promoted the mechanism for years, calls it cap and dividend. (emphasis added)”
So…govt should take your money on a cap & trade scam…then give it back to you…and nobody skims in the middle…right…those are called “pyramid schemes”…only a politician or a scientist could believe somehow this shuffling of money makes sense…and that OF COURSE politics would be left out of the “dividend” end of this…yeah…that’s the ticket…
Is cap-and-trade opposition based on politics?
Is there anything a politician does that is NOT based on politics?
No. Next question.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 2, 2009 at 11:33 am | Permalink
donndublin,
What has Dr. Miskolzci done recently to convince scientists worldwide that his theories are credible?
______________
cosMo since when did not “recently to convince scientists worldwide that his theories are credible”, equate to refuting Dr. Miskolzci’s study? The study stands on it’s own merits.
When an anonymous peon like you claims that a renown PHD in physics does not produce credible science, you only discredit yourself and your theory.
When was the last time the computer models were accurate enough to confirm the AGW theory?
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 2, 2009 at 12:46 pm | Permalink
soldevvb posted July 2, 2009 at 11:49 am
And cosmo can not refute the second law of thermodynamics.
————
AGW science does not refute the second law of thermodynamics.
____________
That’s right and it can’t. It defies the second law of thermodynamics.
“Peter Barnes, an entrepreneur who has promoted the mechanism for years, calls it cap and dividend. (emphasis added)”
I wonder what the “entrepreneur” is invested in, Cap and Trade”?
No one in the house read the energy bill that was shoved down our throats by the dems, I hope it all blows up in their face. Better yet we need to vote out those who belive in socialism. Cap and trade is a ripoff and should not happen. There is no global warming.
Cos – maybe you could explain some of this “science”…kinda like the whole floating satelite screwup a few months ago.
“A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs – run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph – GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic – in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html
Or maybe this one…
“While Antarctic ice core records supposedly ‘prove’ a significant increase in CO2 in this period, there are serious problems with this data. Besides the fact that ice bubbles take about 80 years to form and so cannot give a single year accurate measure, the continual freezing, refreezing and pressurization of ice columns may greatly alter the original composition of the air trapped in the bubbles. Nevertheless, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many others have accepted as meaningful the ice core results that indicate a pre-industrial CO2 level of 280 parts per million (ppm), in comparison with today’s 385 ppm.
The most accurate way to determine the atmosphere’s average CO2 content is to simply conduct a direct chemical analysis at many different places and times. Fortunately, there are more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods between 1857 and 1957. However, in what appears to be a case of ‘cherry-picking’ data to fit a pre-determined conclusion, only the lower level CO2 data were included when the pre-industrial average was calculated (see below graph where data used in the averaging is highlighted). This is the average that was used to supposedly ‘validate’ the long term ice core records on which Al Gore and others depend.”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm
Or this one…
Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young scientists, describes the logic that led him – and most everyone else – to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming. Step One: Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect. Step Two: As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities. Step Three: No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.
Dr. Shaviv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: “Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
“In fact, there is much more than meets the eye.”
Dr. Shaviv’s digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence – only speculation – that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming – is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC’s own findings, man’s role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man’s effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is “incriminating circumstantial evidence,” which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding “evidence of fingerprints.” Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, “without other ’suspects.’ “However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible “other suspects,” he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century’s warming.
“Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming,” he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic-ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist.”
The sun’s strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can’t have much of an influence on the climate – that C02 et al. don’t dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, “will not dramatically increase the global temperature,” Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant.”
http://energy.probeinternational.org/climate-change/the-deniers/the-deniers-part-x-limited-role-co2
Ok you “smart people” who have never taken a college level biology course and think you are more qualified than hundreds of practicing PHd’s:
How do you explain the the drop in the ocean’s pH? And what solutions do you propose to mitigate the undeniable effects?
Be cautious, talk radio and right wing blogs don’t address this issue, so you might have to actually–gasp–think for yourself on this one.
I am in a different time zone so I don’t expect any replies, but seriously, people. Use logic.
Read a textbook on all of the science issues you want to discuss, seriously.
Okay I am done being disgusted and angry now.
DFB,
Someone somewhere putting the previous months data into a column is not a “floating satellite screwup”.
Accurately measuring well-mixed atmospheric CO2 levels requires using remote sites, tall towers, a coastline with onshore winds, or similar procedures.
The trends of solar and cosmic rays do not explain the warming observed since the mid-1970’s.
Cos writes: “DFB,
Someone somewhere putting the previous months data into a column is not a “floating satellite screwup”.”
____________
Uh…yeah…I know…I was referring to the arctic ice measurements they had to eat crow on because of some satelite issues earlier this year.
As for the “warming since the ’70’s”…it’s some of the same marketing strategy used by politicians. Let a falsehood fly, the more inflammatory the better, because once it’s found to be false, it doesn’t matter the myth is sexier than truth. You guys still quote the 90’s as the “hottest decade on record!”..even though Hansen was forced to admit that the 30’s was actually the warmest decade this century…huh, which story lives on, the myth or truth?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html
Tara – don’t know if you remember or not, but I’d asked you about your thoughts on the ideas of purposely putting iron filings into the ocean to create algae blooms to soak up C02. Do you have any thoughts/opinions on that strategy relative to the PH/acidity issue?
DFB posted July 3, 2009 at 9:05 am
Let a falsehood fly, the more inflammatory the better, because once it’s found to be false, it doesn’t matter the myth is sexier than truth. You guys still quote the 90’s as the “hottest decade on record!”..even though Hansen was forced to admit that the 30’s was actually the warmest decade this century…huh, which story lives on, the myth or truth?
———————–
DFB, your endless lies and spin are tiresome and boring.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html
“Contrary to some statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.”
Tara – as for all the ““smart people” who have never taken a college level biology course and think you are more qualified than hundreds of practicing PHd’s:”
Apparently those pesky “PHD’s” behind the authors of the articles that deny AGW are meaningless, right? Nobody on this blog, well, except maybe Cosmos, is trying to portray themselves as scientists/climatologists. It’s nothing but a pizzing match between ideologically motivated “scientific thinktanks” from both sides. Neither argument is perfectly defendable. As for myself..I lean towards the argument that makes the most common sense and requires the least gyrations of anecdotal evidence, that’s all…to be honest, your PH level issue is as logical as I’ve seen presented. But does it not also concur with the fact that historical C02 levels have trailed temperature rises, as the ocean released C02, therefore once again, explaining “warming” and PH?
Sorry, but when people scoff at solar activity as a major factor in our planet’s ambient temperature, for example…it gets pretty tough to take anything else they say seriously. C02 levels were much, much higher than they are today, when dinos roamed the earth, because they needed more vegetation & more warmth to get as big as they did. Oceans have covered & receded from Kansas for eons, creating the salt strata that stretches from NM to NE…the Great Lakes were formed by glaciers…all of this happening with no help/hindrance from humans. So infusing the AGW issue with massive quantities of politics…sets it up for nothing but an endless debate, if for no other reason than politics poison atmoshperes far more than C02 ever could.
Cos, from your own article:
“Unfortunately, we didn’t realize that these corrections would not continue to be readily available in the near-real-time data streams. The same stations are in the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data stream, however, and thus what our analysis picked up in subsequent years was station data without the NOAA correction. Obviously, combining the uncorrected GHCN with the NOAA-corrected records for earlier years caused jumps in 2000 in the records at those stations, some up, some down (over U.S. only).”
Good thing a “blogger”, McInyre caught it…not Hansen..and not like this is the first time the processes used were shown to be shaky. Funny, how those honest errors…always result in reports that show things warmer/less ice than what the truth is…guess that stroke of fate’s just always on the side of selling the IPCC’s report.
Maybe it’s just coinnkidink, that Dr. (I know, I know, “Dr” doesn’t count less you’re a believer) Edward Wegman, professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at Geo Mason Univ & Chair of Natl Acad of Sciences’ Comm on Applied Theoretical Statistics punked their use of stat methodology saying “The assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.” He went on to say, “There is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.”
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
Weird…a whole report done challenging the claims about the ’90s & 1998 specifically…huh, if I didn’t know better, I’d think a myth was let fly..in hopes that when corrected later…the myth would live on….
DFB posted July 3, 2009 at 9:22 am
Sorry, but when people scoff at solar activity as a major factor in our planet’s ambient temperature, for example…it gets pretty tough to take anything else they say seriously.
——————
DFB’s straw men make it impossible to take anything he/she says seriously.
Cos – do you even know what a “strawman” argument is?? You said: “The trends of solar and cosmic rays do not explain the warming observed since the mid-1970’s.” So…you’re saying the thing that creates 100% of our heat on this planet, the sun, means nothing…but your silly trace gas fairy tale is “logic”….but thanks again, for adding another snark in place of anything of substance. Just confirms how shallow your argument is.
DFB posted July 3, 2009 at 10:54 am
Cos – do you even know what a “strawman” argument is?? You said: “The trends of solar and cosmic rays do not explain the warming observed since the mid-1970’s.” So…you’re saying the thing that creates 100% of our heat on this planet, the sun, means nothing…but your silly trace gas fairy tale is “logic”….but thanks again, for adding another snark in place of anything of substance. Just confirms how shallow your argument is.
——————
No DFB. . .
I said that the trends of solar and cosmic rays do not explain the warming observed since the mid-1970’s.
I did not say that solar activity “means nothing”.
Cos – so, since you’re basing your entire theory on “since the mid-1970’s”, why did “scientists” come up with such silly terms as “solar cycles”? Since solar cycles have heated/cooled our planet since it’s birth…why would the natural implication be to ignore solar cycles “since the mid-1970’s” and assume they don’t play a factor in recent history…as well as the future?
DFB posted July 3, 2009 at 11:53 am
Since solar cycles have heated/cooled our planet since it’s birth…why would the natural implication be to ignore solar cycles “since the mid-1970’s” and assume they don’t play a factor in recent history…as well as the future?
———————-
DFB,
Solar activity has not been “ignored” since the mid-1970’s.
Solar activity was examined, and it did not explain the warming observed since the mid-1970’s.
Solar activity in the future, which cannot be predicted, will also not be “ignored” — it will be a climate factor, along with other factors such as GHG’s.
Good Morning Wichita Eagle and WE bloggers!
So long I have been gone!
Cap and trade should be more accurately called “cap and tax”!
A severely drastic and unwarranted attack by environmental wackos, AKA, left wing extremist radicals.
Speak up conservatives against this statist approach to ruin Freedom and America.
Democrats and Republicans – you are being called out.
Greenies – what is your reply???
Hey Cosmos, old chum,
Why have the other planets in this solar system followed the same temperature trending the that earth has?
Man made global warming?
Do you suppose, maybe the Sun is causing all that heat?
I mean, the Sun certainly seems hot.
It’s really frickin bright too. Hard to look at it.
It’s like 10,000 atomoic bombs are going off every second. I’m sure that must produce a sihtload of heat.
During the day time,
you can just hold your hands out toward the sun and even FEEL how HOT it is!
Really, you have to try this some time.
I put some ice cubes in a glass of water, and set the glass on the picnic table in the sun one time.
You’ll never guess what happened.
In no time at all, that ice just melted! I mean, it was like the polar ice caps melting, except there were no polar bears drowning.
It was quite amazing to watch.
And in winter, the sun is still sometimes hot.
Not always, but like when there are icicles forming on the downspout on a sunny day, and the snow actually melts on the roof, even though it’s below freezing, the sun is just so hot.
But then, the water refreezes and makes a lil icicle.
These are cool.
You normally put polar bears in your iced tea, “JimJohnson?” –
Tiny polar bears?
Or is it a really big glass of iced tea?
Here in the reality-based community, a bit of sugar and/or a slice of lemon usually suffices.
“JimJohnson” contributes –
“… when there are icicles forming on the downspout on a sunny day, and the snow actually melts on the roof, even though it’s below freezing, the sun is just so hot.
But then, the water refreezes and makes a lil icicle.
These are cool.”
That post might qualify you as one of the brighter 10-year-olds on the Internet.
Congratulations.
Oh no Monkey, I wouldn’t put polar bears in iced tea. I hate tea. Ice water, yes, but not tea.
And btw, since you are a Monkey, just how do you stand that summer heat, with all that fur and all?
“JimJohnson” goes full loony with –
“…since you are a Monkey, just how do you stand that summer heat, with all that fur and all?”
Oh, I dunno.
Maybe I spread my wings and soar above all the rest of you.
What a silly comment from you, “JimJohnson.”
I suspect it was intended as an insult of some sort but, for the life of me, I can’t figure out what I’m supposed to be offended by.
See, that’s a recurring problem when dealing with you CONs on WE Blog. You simply don’t get it and your don’t get it that you don’t get it and you parrot Fux News Channel talking points without a clue about what you’re talking about and you end up with debating points like, “nitwit,” or “MonkeyHock,” or “Michelle Obama’s got a big ass,” or “…since you are a Monkey….”
Keep it up, CONs.
Don’t change a thing you’re doing!
Take over the Repubic Party and make them do your bidding!
I’m sorry for my schadenfreude, but your self-destruction is just too much fun to watch.
American posted July 4, 2009 at 11:46 am
Why have the other planets in this solar system followed the same temperature trending the that earth has?
————–
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
For someone who can supposedly fly above all of us, my ‘hot sun melts ice’ posts went WAY over Monkey’s head.
But then, this entire topic went WAY over Monkey’s head.