gw is a LIE!

IanC · Mar 25, 2011

Richard Tol's blog about working on the next IPCC report. IPCC5 Key Economic Sectors and Services

Old Rocks- still think your heroes like Mann and Jones and the IPCC dont have feet of clay?

I actually like a lot of what the IPCC has to say, when its not quoting climate models or quack gray literature. or spouting off on politics. but the people who did most of the work, rather than the figureheads added for diversity and world inclusion, were pretty good overall. but I wouldnt believe everything they say because they are an 'authority'.

Old Rocks · Mar 25, 2011

Walleyes;

Oh yes, I hope Ian won't mind but the quote came from one of your favourite websites..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news...=2&t=90&&n=646

Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change

So how come that 97 % of the experts agree that the current warming is not natural but a consequence of burning fossil fuels?

First, it is because all our data show that the global mean temperature is increasing, that the glaciers and the arctic ice are melting and therefore sea levels are rising.

Second, we know that burning fossil fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The properties of CO2 were first studied by John Tyndall in the late 1850s. Tyndall was an experimental physicist interested in how different gases absorb heat. John Tyndall's observations were remarkable. His pioneering work eventually inspired physicists to develop the theory of quantum mechanics, but his results about CO2 also led Arrhenius in 1896 to the conclusion that burning fossil fuel will result in global warming. So climate science is a very old science indeed; we have known about CO2 for more than 150 years.

Nowadays we know how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere by using it as our global garbage bin for fossil fuel. All our climate observations show a global increase in temperature. This increase is consistent with the well established properties of CO2.

Taking this into account it is no longer surprising that 97% of the professional sceptics working in the area of climate science agree that we are currently witnessing man-made climate change. The only question remaining is, what do we do? Ignore the facts or generate energy from other sources?

So, once again Walleyes is lying. The quote was not from the article in Skeptical Science but from the comments.

Ian and Walleyes seem to be into lying by indirection. Time after time we have seen Walleyes post an article from a peer reviewed source, and claim it said something 180 degrees from what it stated. I guess he assumes that no one will bother to read the source.

Mann, Jones, Hansen, and the rest of the scientists studying global warming are doing real research. Even Spencer's data confirms what they are stating. All you fellows have is a lying ex-TV weatherman with no degree, and a couple of paid for whores who also went before Congress to testify that tobacco was harmless.

polarbear · Mar 25, 2011

Old Rocks said:
Walleyes;

Oh yes, I hope Ian won't mind but the quote came from one of your favourite websites..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news...=2&t=90&&n=646

Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change

So how come that 97 % of the experts agree that the current warming is not natural but a consequence of burning fossil fuels?

First, it is because all our data show that the global mean temperature is increasing, that the glaciers and the arctic ice are melting and therefore sea levels are rising.

Second, we know that burning fossil fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The properties of CO2 were first studied by John Tyndall in the late 1850s. Tyndall was an experimental physicist interested in how different gases absorb heat. John Tyndall's observations were remarkable. His pioneering work eventually inspired physicists to develop the theory of quantum mechanics, but his results about CO2 also led Arrhenius in 1896 to the conclusion that burning fossil fuel will result in global warming. So climate science is a very old science indeed; we have known about CO2 for more than 150 years.

Nowadays we know how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere by using it as our global garbage bin for fossil fuel. All our climate observations show a global increase in temperature. This increase is consistent with the well established properties of CO2.

Taking this into account it is no longer surprising that 97% of the professional sceptics working in the area of climate science agree that we are currently witnessing man-made climate change. The only question remaining is, what do we do? Ignore the facts or generate energy from other sources?

So, once again Walleyes is lying. The quote was not from the article in Skeptical Science but from the comments.

Ian and Walleyes seem to be into lying by indirection. Time after time we have seen Walleyes post an article from a peer reviewed source, and claim it said something 180 degrees from what it stated. I guess he assumes that no one will bother to read the source.

Mann, Jones, Hansen, and the rest of the scientists studying global warming are doing real research. Even Spencer's data confirms what they are stating. All you fellows have is a lying ex-TV weatherman with no degree, and a couple of paid for whores who also went before Congress to testify that tobacco was harmless.

Did it ever even occur to You how silly You and Your "science" are, right down to the foundation. And You keep quoting the "late 1850 founding father" Tyndall who`s job was to stoke ovens , but who was desperate for attention.
@ that time the procedure to get the rats out of a ship was to catch one, singe the fur an release the alarmist rat. This is supposed to trigger the grand rat alarm which should cause a rat panic, that the ship is on fire....and yield a rat free ship before You set sail.

This is 2011 and the Tyndall occult members are still behaving like the alarmist rats.

With every post You underline how little You know..especially about science, yet You see Yourself in a role to make scientific judgment calls. ...based on crap like this...
this is the web-page You kept quoting over and over, like a Tibetan prayer mill:

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty.

"Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence — hotly debated among scientists of his day —

Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun.

So he took a nature hike and that made him a "glaciologist"....

I`ll pause here because Fourier was a serious Mathematician and what he said turned out to be true, but in no way did Fourier in any of his works ever make any silly statements about a few extra ppm of CO2 out powering the effects of the other 99.996 % of gasses our atmosphere consists of.

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)

You have even way less of a clue of Physics that Tyndall could possibly have in 1859 when he made this "careful laboratory work" his occult members like to call it.
To determine how "scientific" that was or not was does not even require any expertise in Physics,...
So lets take a look at some things that Tyndall was totally ignorant of in 1859 when he ---
". In 1859, his careful laboratory work".
MIT Spectroscopy Lab - History

Experimental Contributions to Spectroscopy
H.A. Lorentz and P. Zeeman (1902) discovery of the splitting of spectral lines in magnetic
J. Stark (1919) discovery of the splitting of spectral lines in electric fields
C.V. Raman (1930), the first to demonstrate spectral line shifts due to inelastic light scattering (Raman effect)
W.E. Lamb, Jr. (1955), who discovered the fine structure splitting in the first excited state of atomic hydrogen (this work was actually done with microwaves, but its origin and impact have been central to studies of atomic spectra)
R.S. Mulliken (1966) and G. Herzberg (1971), for their contributions to molecular spectroscopy
A.L. Schawlow (1981), for work in the field of laser spectroscopy
A. Zewail (1999), for studies of the transition states of chemical reactions using femtosecond spectroscopy

Theoretical Contributions to Spectroscopy
M. Planck (1918), who discovered the elemental quantum of action
N. Bohr (1922), the first to link the regularities of spectral lines to the quantum structure of atoms
P.A.M. Dirac and E. Schrodinger (1933), for their contributions to the quantum theory of atoms
W. Pauli (1945), who discovered the quantum exclusion principle

Inventions and Discoveries Related to Spectroscopy
A.A. Michelson (1907) invention of the interferometer, a hallmark in spectroscopic instrumentation
C.H. Townes , N.G. Basov and A.M. Prokhorov (1964) development of the maser, a source of coherent microwave radiation, which led to development of the laser and opened the field of modern spectroscopy
A. Kastler (1966) for the development of optical pumping of atoms
N. Bloembergen (1981) for his contributions to nonlinear optics
H.G. Dehmelt and W. Paul (1989) received this award for invention of the ion trap, an important tool in current spectroscopic research

Even though we have all that REAL science today Tyndall "science" morons keep playing the global warming alarm rats, as if none of the above scientists ever existed.

Just one look at the Nobelariate of that "science" was enough for most americans to realize what kind of "science" that is:

And today`s Tyndall...Michael Mann...:

Climate Scientist, Heated Up Over Satirical Video, Threatens Lawsuit - FoxNews.com

Climate Scientist, Heated Up Over Satirical Video, Threatens Lawsuit
The Penn State climate professor who has silently endured investigations, hostile questioning, legislative probes and attacks by colleagues has finally spoken out. He says he'll sue the makers of a satirical video that's a hit on You Tube.

Their response: Bring it on.

Michael Mann, one of the central figures in the recent climate-data scandal, is best known for his "hockey stick graph," which was the key visual aid in explaining how the world is warming at an alarming rate and in connecting the rise to the increase in use of carbon fuels in this century.

Mention "climate change" and "overwhelming evidence" in the same sentence in Congress today and You have one of these rare moments of good spirited bi-lateral agreement ...
and even the speaker can`t suppress laughing..:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXnPjjCu-kY&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXnPjjCu-kY&feature=related[/ame]

"GW science" and peer review...? this "science" cant even make it past 6 graders any more
When did You drop out of school ?
I guess soon You`ll be doing what NASA, NOAA and many others are doing,...they are setting new records for deleting web pages!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/noaa-deletes-an-inconvenient-kids-science-web-page/

NOAA deletes an “inconvenient” kids science web page
Posted on November 3, 2009 by Anthony Watts

Hadley CRU isn’t the only government agency that deletes web content related to climate. NOAA/NWS Southern Region Headquarters has gotten into the act. An interesting thing happened today. NOAA deleted an educational web page about an experiment you can do with CO2.

But that one is insignificant, create an account with the "way back" search machine that digs out deleted web pages and who wrote them, + the content..
and You`ll get a much better picture who is trying to create an impression, they never agreed with this GW crap..:
http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

And check out what NASA, NOAA has been deleting at a record pace. concerning man made global warming
The previous record was the Stasi (State Security Police) of the former Communist East Germany, just before it collapsed

Here is a typical example:

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image LabMethane's Connection to Global Warming (9/12/2006)
Methane is a simple compound made of carbon and hydroge. This gas comes from ordinary sources, like cattle herds and garbage dumps. On a planetary scale it also has a significant impact on climate. As it builds up in the atmosphere, it traps energy from the sun like a layer of insulation. Carbon dioxide does much the same thing-it causes global warming by trapping heat

Deleted!

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform - Black Carbon and Global Warming - On Thursday, October 18, 2007, the Committee held a hearing to examine the climate change and other impacts of black carbon emissions. Black carbon is better known as soot and results from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass. The Committee received testimony about the significant global and regional effects of black carbon, its sources, and the positive effect reductions in emissions would have on both climate change and public health worldwide. Video provided by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Deleted

Today you can find way more deleted web pages from institutions like NASA, NOAA, and all sorts of government committees and a shitload list of Universities in a desperate bid to save face, than any other search word for deleted web pages would net You.
"Global Warming", "Climate Change", "Greenhouse Gas", "Glacier melting"...they top all other categories in the number of recently deleted web pages...try it out Yourself!

Everybody all over sudden wants to pretend they never got conned by Michael Mann
http://www.archive.org/details/HurricanesAndGlobalWarming-Dr.KerryEmanuel

Hurricanes and Global Warming- Dr. Kerry Emanuel

DELETED

http://www.archive.org/details/Agci-GlobalWarmingAndRisingSeaLevelBeachfrontInKansas782

In this talk, Professor Mark Meier of the University of Colorado, offers some of the best scientific hypotheses about future effects of global warming. This is part of the Walter Orr Roberts Public Lecture Series presented by the Aspen Global Change Institute. Recorded on August 6, 1990 in Aspen, CO.

DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED

and so on and on...get used to it or :
Page not found
We’re sorry, the page you have requested is not available. Page not found
We’re sorry, the page you have requested is not available. Page not found
We’re sorry, the page you have requested is not available.
Page not found
We’re sorry, the page you have requested is not available.
Here is just a small Sample what has been deleted, from 2005 to date, every time someone mentioned NASA and GW together...:
Searching for "NASA + Global Warming"...deleted web pages
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=nasa%20climate%20change
and there are way more, if You go back to 1990

Climate Change and Polar Ice - NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Water covers more than 70% of our planet's surface and largely governs so many things from climate change to the sustenance of life on earth. What you may not realize is the vital importance played by the solid part of our planet's water inventory. Note: Are We Wakin

it goes on and on...
every time You quote your f-ing idiots links here over had over again we`ll quote You a 5 mile List of what NOAA and NASA is deleting what they had on "Global Warming"..."Greenland Ice" ...hey there are hundreds of possible word combinations !

"OldRocks"...You are up the creek without a paddle and don`t even know it You ficking idiot!
You are not here to learn anything,.....nor would You be capable.
The best way to explain Your presence is as a rat that singed it`s own fur to get some attention from other rats who are stupid enough to react to yet another idiot, desperate for attention..just as Tyndall was in his time...and today`s Tyndalls,...and "leading GW scientist" Michael Mann
Only Tyndall was not as moronic as You are, because at his time none of the science for his "careful laboratory work" even existed...
now it does, but it`s apparently too complicated for rats and alarmist rats to comprehend
that a whiff of CO2 or a whiff of burnt fur odor means the world or a ship is in "overheating mode".
But please, by all means keep writing here and don`t quit smoking pot...it`s hard to find good comedy elsewhere...
We would all miss You!

Incidentally, the title of this thread is all wrong, GW is not a lie, it`s a joke
...But a joke far too expensive to laugh about

polarbear · Mar 25, 2011

Yeah I were any of them I`d delete that too, these were "NASA scientists" and that was
in a "how to"... Data collection manual

Monthly means of selected climate variables for 1985 - 1989

look at the cluster fuck of data collection points in Europe, South America, the populated U.S.
almost every data point is where a large city is and 2 lonely points for Greenland and the entire arctic region

And when I posted the same things in words and the pictures I snapped all over Greenland and Ellesmere where I had worked many years,summer AND WINTER and knowing who and what is up there and who or what is not...

polarbear-albums-co2-reduction-picture3394-marschbefehl.jpg

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6NUk4UIw8M&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6NUk4UIw8M&feature=related[/ame]
some Moron here kept quoting what other morons who are now "deleted NASA scientists" say what`s going on up there...
The data point on the west side of Greenland, that`s our base up there and no one from NASA ever requested daily temperatures from us...I know that with 100% certainty.
The other point at the NE tip, that is just a temporary Summer site were we go now and then to check on some battery banks on microwave dishes...nobody I know ever went there, took a thermometer along and phoned "Your NASA climate scientists" and told them what the temp. there was!
and don`t get a hardon "OldRocks" over "the flooded river" in the Pentagon Video...that River has been doing that long before there was a base there...
I even posted pictures of it when I registered here...there are sediment banks of that river going back thousands of years that show how high this river was,...long before man ever built the first CO2 "spewing" chimney!

westwall · Mar 25, 2011

Old Rocks said:
Walleyes;

Oh yes, I hope Ian won't mind but the quote came from one of your favourite websites..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news...=2&t=90&&n=646

Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change

So how come that 97 % of the experts agree that the current warming is not natural but a consequence of burning fossil fuels?

First, it is because all our data show that the global mean temperature is increasing, that the glaciers and the arctic ice are melting and therefore sea levels are rising.

Second, we know that burning fossil fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The properties of CO2 were first studied by John Tyndall in the late 1850s. Tyndall was an experimental physicist interested in how different gases absorb heat. John Tyndall's observations were remarkable. His pioneering work eventually inspired physicists to develop the theory of quantum mechanics, but his results about CO2 also led Arrhenius in 1896 to the conclusion that burning fossil fuel will result in global warming. So climate science is a very old science indeed; we have known about CO2 for more than 150 years.

Nowadays we know how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere by using it as our global garbage bin for fossil fuel. All our climate observations show a global increase in temperature. This increase is consistent with the well established properties of CO2.

Taking this into account it is no longer surprising that 97% of the professional sceptics working in the area of climate science agree that we are currently witnessing man-made climate change. The only question remaining is, what do we do? Ignore the facts or generate energy from other sources?

So, once again Walleyes is lying. The quote was not from the article in Skeptical Science but from the comments.

Ian and Walleyes seem to be into lying by indirection. Time after time we have seen Walleyes post an article from a peer reviewed source, and claim it said something 180 degrees from what it stated. I guess he assumes that no one will bother to read the source.

Mann, Jones, Hansen, and the rest of the scientists studying global warming are doing real research. Even Spencer's data confirms what they are stating. All you fellows have is a lying ex-TV weatherman with no degree, and a couple of paid for whores who also went before Congress to testify that tobacco was harmless.

Jeez olfraud you sound like a little baby, "mommy he's lying to meeeee" I never said it was from the article clown, I said it was from one of your favorite websites.
Try using a little reading comprehension.

:lol:

Old Rocks · Mar 25, 2011

BiPolar. Fitting.

IanC · Mar 25, 2011

Old Rocks said- Time after time we have seen Walleyes post an article from a peer reviewed source, and claim it said something 180 degrees from what it stated. I guess he assumes that no one will bother to read the source.

doesnt he realize that the data in a paper can often be used to come to much different conclusions than the author's? thats the whole point of science, to find the best explanation. McIntyre examined the papers leading to The Hockey Stick and found that data had been chopped off from the beginning and the end to hide the fact that proxies dont support Mann's theory of unpresedented warming. Who's conclusion is more correct?

acc_69 · Mar 26, 2011

"Climate Change" (or what we used to call "the weather").

skookerasbil · Mar 27, 2011

acc_69 said:
"Climate Change" (or what we used to call "the weather").

acc........welcome aboard. Stop in again. This forum is the shit for entertainment.............got some real mental cases on here who believe without a second thought that record cold temperatures are a clear sign of global warming. Every time there is a weather anomoly somewhere? Guess what??

Too............and even more entertaining is that these k00ks think they are dominating the debate!!

The real mental cases like Old Rocks and Chris were on here a couple of weeks ago blaming the Japan tsunami on global warming!!! Shit is great bro.........you cant make shit up like this!!!

Enjoy..........

acc_69 · Mar 27, 2011

Hi skookerasbil and thanks. Global Warming suddenly became Climate Change to correspond with lower, not higher temperatures in countries such as ours. Convenient. Due to the length of our recent winters in Scotland, the councils experienced rock salt shortages, due to the sheer amount needed to keep the main roads treated.

Old Rocks · Mar 27, 2011

skookerasbil said:
acc_69 said:

"Climate Change" (or what we used to call "the weather").

Click to expand...

acc........welcome aboard. Stop in again. This forum is the shit for entertainment.............got some real mental cases on here who believe without a second thought that record cold temperatures are a clear sign of global warming. Every time there is a weather anomoly somewhere? Guess what?? Too............and even more entertaining is that these k00ks think they are dominating the debate!! The real mental cases like Old Rocks and Chris were on here a couple of weeks ago blaming the Japan tsunami on global warming!!! Shit is great bro.........you cant make shit up like this!!!

Enjoy..........

What do you mean "you can't make up shit like that"? Because you just did, you lying asshole.

Old Rocks · Mar 27, 2011

acc_69 said:
Hi skookerasbil and thanks. Global Warming suddenly became Climate Change to correspond with lower, not higher temperatures in countries such as ours. Convenient. Due to the length of our recent winters in Scotland, the councils experienced rock salt shortages, due to the sheer amount needed to keep the main roads treated.

Sheesh. What lower temperatures? Overall, in line with natural variations, the temperature on a global scale is still going up. And the ice caps and alpine glaciers are still melting.

UAH Temperature Update for Feb. 2011: -0.02 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

IanC · Mar 30, 2011

from Spencer's site-

where is the accelerating temperature increases? OMG, we're all going to fry! perhaps if we just turn off the electricity and gas and quietly starve to death Gaia will be pleased and return the Earth to its pre-0.7C increase climate.

Old Rocks · Mar 30, 2011

Note the upturn that we are presently experiancing. Also, with just 0.7C increase, we have the ice on both poles melting at an accelerating rate. And almost all of the alpine glaciers melting.

The melting of the permafrost is well documented in the Alaskan, Canadian, and Siberian arctic. The release of CH4 and CO2 from that is also well documented. The release of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean Clathrates is also documented.

All of this from only a 0.7 C increase in temperature. And the present increase is from the CO2 level in the atmosphere from 30 to 50 years ago. We won't feel the full affects of the present level for another generation or two.

Undoubtedly you are a younger person than I am. You will see more of the effects of the warming than I will. Then you can explain why you were so blind to your grandchildren.

IanC · Mar 30, 2011

Old Rocks said:
Note the upturn that we are presently experiancing. Also, with just 0.7C increase, we have the ice on both poles melting at an accelerating rate. And almost all of the alpine glaciers melting.

The melting of the permafrost is well documented in the Alaskan, Canadian, and Siberian arctic. The release of CH4 and CO2 from that is also well documented. The release of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean Clathrates is also documented.

All of this from only a 0.7 C increase in temperature. And the present increase is from the CO2 level in the atmosphere from 30 to 50 years ago. We won't feel the full affects of the present level for another generation or two.

Undoubtedly you are a younger person than I am. You will see more of the effects of the warming than I will. Then you can explain why you were so blind to your grandchildren.

and yet the world didnt burn up during the MWP or the Roman Warm Period or any of the warm periods (often called Optimums) that happened earlier.

Old Rocks · Mar 30, 2011

The study that Westwall presented from ocean sediments indicated only a 0.2 C warming for that period. Less than 1/3 of todays warming. Yet you constantly point to that as a major warming.

And you know damned well that no one has said the world is going to burn up, or any of the other garbage that you in denial throw out. What has been said is that a world with about 7 billion people depending on an uncertain climate for it's daily bread is a recipe for disaster. The last 12 months is an example of that. Even if the agricultural disasters were the result of natural variation and had nothing to do with AGW, it should be a wake up call to the vulnebility of our present population to disruption of the food supply.

IanC · Mar 30, 2011

Old Rocks said:
The study that Westwall presented from ocean sediments indicated only a 0.2 C warming for that period. Less than 1/3 of todays warming. Yet you constantly point to that as a major warming. And you know damned well that no one has said the world is going to burn up, or any of the other garbage that you in denial throw out. What has been said is that a world with about 7 billion people depending on an uncertain climate for it's daily bread is a recipe for disaster. The last 12 months is an example of that. Even if the agricultural disasters were the result of natural variation and had nothing to do with AGW, it should be a wake up call to the vulnebility of our present population to disruption of the food supply.

where have I pointed to that study?

there is lots of evidence that people prosper in times of warmth. civilization often took giant leaps forward in them because people had time to do other thing rather than just struggle to survive. the weather events of the last year are nothing out of the ordinary as can be easily seen by simply reading newspaper headlines from the last few hundred years.

you have worked yourself into a frenzy over AGW and so see 'the signs' of the sin of man in everything that happens. go back to a more normal organized religion so that you wont have to be tormented every day.

westwall · Mar 30, 2011

Old Rocks said:
The study that Westwall presented from ocean sediments indicated only a 0.2 C warming for that period. Less than 1/3 of todays warming. Yet you constantly point to that as a major warming.

And you know damned well that no one has said the world is going to burn up, or any of the other garbage that you in denial throw out. What has been said is that a world with about 7 billion people depending on an uncertain climate for it's daily bread is a recipe for disaster. The last 12 months is an example of that. Even if the agricultural disasters were the result of natural variation and had nothing to do with AGW, it should be a wake up call to the vulnebility of our present population to disruption of the food supply.

That's incorrect, you alarmists are allways claiming that the world is going to warm out of control. You point to every time there was warmth as a period of catastrophe and mass extinctions.

So sorry for you that the PETM was in fact a period of rapid increase in biodiversity. The terrestrial life blossomed and spread all over the place. The only thing that died was a foraminefera that was indeed driven into extinction....that's your mass extinction, a tiny critter that wasn't able to compete. All the other forams did extremely well but you focus on the one that didn't to support your mantra of catastrophe. The very essence of cherry picking data to support your failed cause.

skookerasbil · Mar 30, 2011

Saw this and laughed my ass off...........a major headline on DRUDGE right now ( viewed by 30 million by midnight by the way!!!!)

"Sierra snows so deep, cant find houses!!!"

The News Tribune (Lite) - Near-record Sierra snow good news to parched Calif

More bad news for the k00ks!!!! :fu: