Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?

[Crick]

Greenland temperatures (such as those shown in your last plot) show much less increase than anywhere else on the planet. They are NOT representative. Two studies, using a large selection of proxies from all over the planet have been performed, covering from the present back 11,000 years, the second taking us back another 11,000 years to the beginning of the Holocene. Their data look like this:

These data aren't Greenland, they're the planet Earth.

 

[RollingThunder]

....and it is "settled science", very much so! ... ...The American Geophysical Union (AGU) [the world’s largest association of Earth scientists, with over 62,000 members from 144 countries.] adopted a statement... ...Earth's lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming... ...dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities... ....policy discussions should... ...adapt to and mitigate climate change

Let's you and I just look at the experimental evidence ourselves right here. Please show:the hard numbers proving how much the the temp of the biosphere's gone up since 1967,

....Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]

--and the link goes to

showing almost a half degree increase. No data, no readings, so the number's still a bit controversial. Just the same we got NOAA ice-core numbers that are similar: .

and agree w/ the 1/2 recent increase. The problem is w/ the second proof we were looking for:

that it's the kind of rise has never happened before in recorded history w/o causing so much harm that we want to spend $trillions,

The evidence you're sharing shows an increase that's pretty small potatoes compared to what we had before. We also need to know---

what the proof is that people did it.

and you shared--

....Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]

That would mean that my willingness to ever pay money for this will have to be merely "very likely".

Pse see what we're up against here. We're looking at a lousy 1/2 degree increase (much smaller than what's often come before) that we can only guess is "very likely" caused by people, this is hardly what we'd want to pay big bux for.

Your post is nothing but confused and mostly fallacious BS, buddy.

In the real world....2016 was the hottest year on record, beating out 2015 and 2014 for the title....temperatures have already gone up over one degree C., and still rising fast.

2016 Climate Trends Continue to Break Records
NASA
July 19, 2016
Two key climate change indicators -- global surface temperatures and Arctic sea ice extent -- have broken numerous records through the first half of 2016, according to NASA analyses of ground-based observations and satellite data.

Each of the first six months of 2016 set a record as the warmest respective month globally in the modern temperature record, which dates to 1880, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The six-month period from January to June was also the planet's warmest half-year on record, with an average temperature 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the late nineteenth century.

NASA Sees Temperatures Rise and Sea Ice Shrink - Climate Trends 2016
Each of the first six months of 2016 set a record as the warmest respective month globally in the modern temperature record, which dates to 1880. Meanwhile, five of the first six months set records for the smallest monthly Arctic sea ice extent since consistent satellite records began in 1979. - This video is public domain and can be downloaded from the Scientific Visualization Studio.

Five of the first six months of 2016 also set records for the smallest respective monthly Arctic sea ice extent since consistent satellite records began in 1979, according to analyses developed by scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, in Greenbelt, Maryland. The one exception, March, recorded the second smallest extent for that month.

While these two key climate indicators have broken records in 2016, NASA scientists said it is more significant that global temperature and Arctic sea ice are continuing their decades-long trends of change. Both trends are ultimately driven by rising concentrations of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The extent of Arctic sea ice at the peak of the summer melt season now typically covers 40 percent less area than it did in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Arctic sea ice extent in September, the seasonal low point in the annual cycle, has been declining at a rate of 13.4 percent per decade.


Chunks of sea ice, melt ponds and open water are all seen in this image captured at an altitude of 1,500 feet by the NASA's Digital Mapping System instrument during an Operation IceBridge flight over the Chukchi Sea on Saturday, July 16, 2016. - Credits: NASA/Goddard/Operation IceBridge

"While the El Niño event in the tropical Pacific this winter gave a boost to global temperatures from October onwards, it is the underlying trend which is producing these record numbers," GISS Director Gavin Schmidt said.

Previous El Niño events have driven temperatures to what were then record levels, such as in 1998. But in 2016, even as the effects of the recent El Niño taper off, global temperatures have risen well beyond those of 18 years ago because of the overall warming that has taken place in that time.


The first six months of 2016 were the warmest six-month period in NASA's modern temperature record, which dates to 1880. - Credits: NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies

The global trend in rising temperatures is outpaced by the regional warming in the Arctic, said Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist at NASA Goddard.

"It has been a record year so far for global temperatures, but the record high temperatures in the Arctic over the past six months have been even more extreme," Meier said. "This warmth as well as unusual weather patterns have led to the record low sea ice extents so far this year."

NASA tracks temperature and sea ice as part of its effort to understand the Earth as a system and to understand how Earth is changing. In addition to maintaining 19 Earth-observing space missions, NASA also sends researchers around the globe to investigate different facets of the planet at closer range. Right now, NASA researchers are working across the Arctic to better understand both the processes driving increased sea ice melt and the impacts of rising temperatures on Arctic ecosystems.

NASA's long-running Operation IceBridge campaign last week began a series of airborne measurements of melt ponds on the surface of the Arctic sea ice cap. Melt ponds are shallow pools of water that form as ice melts. Their darker surface can absorb more sunlight and accelerate the melting process. IceBridge is flying out of Barrow, Alaska, during sea ice melt season to capture melt pond observations at a scale never before achieved. Recent studies have found that the formation of melt ponds early in the summer is a good predictor of the yearly minimum sea ice extent in September.

"No one has ever, from a remote sensing standpoint, mapped the large-scale depth of melt ponds on sea ice," said Nathan Kurtz, IceBridge’s project scientist and a sea ice researcher at NASA Goddard. "The information we’ll collect is going to show how much water is retained in melt ponds and what kind of topography is needed on the sea ice to constrain them, which will help improve melt pond models."

Operation IceBridge is a NASA airborne mission that has been flying multiple campaigns at both poles each year since 2009, with a goal of maintaining critical continuity of observations of sea ice and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.

At the same time, NASA researchers began in earnest this year a nearly decade-long, multi-faceted field study of Arctic ecosystems in Alaska and Canada. The Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) will study how forests, permafrost and other ecosystems are responding to rising temperatures in the Arctic, where climate change is unfolding faster than anywhere else on the planet.

ABoVE consists of dozens individual experiments that over years will study the region's changing forests, the cycle of carbon movement between the atmosphere and land, thawing permafrost, the relationship between fire and climate change, and more.

For more information on NASA's Earth science activities, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/earth

For more information about NASA's IceBridge, visit:
www.nasa.gov/icebridge

For more information about the ABoVE mission, visit:
http://above.nasa.gov/

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Fuck. That particular paper was referring to social sciences. And the science, physics of absorption spectra of GHG gasses was established in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. Svante Arrhenius did the first quantitative analysis of the results of that in 1896. The prediction was that if you increased the GHGs in the atmosphere, the temperature of the atmosphere would increase. And it has.

One of the bugaboos of the denialists is the Mann graph. Yet other researchers have used different proxies, and even somewhat different stastitical methods, and came up with the same graph.

Climate science is on as solid of a surface as evolution.

LOL

 

[RollingThunder]

Fuck. That particular paper was referring to social sciences. And the science, physics of absorption spectra of GHG gasses was established in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. Svante Arrhenius did the first quantitative analysis of the results of that in 1896. The prediction was that if you increased the GHGs in the atmosphere, the temperature of the atmosphere would increase. And it has.

One of the bugaboos of the denialists is the Mann graph. Yet other researchers have used different proxies, and even somewhat different stastitical methods, and came up with the same graph.

Climate science is on as solid of a surface as evolution.

LOL

I see you're still utterly confused and bumfuddled, CrazyFruitcake....just like always.

 

[SSDD]

The global warming phenomenon is a data point that has been observed and measured.

WHAT IS CAUSING IT is presently still unknown.

Perhaps in the deep dark depths of denier cult insanity, some retards still moronically believe that scientists are clueless about the causes of global warming....but in the real world, your statement is complete bullshit!

See post #6 for proof.

Hey thunder...have you sought out any help for that condition that leaves you intimidated and threatened by anyone who disagrees with you yet?...still unable to have anything like a normal relationship with anyone because no one will agree with you all the time?

Hey, SoDumb....have you sought out any help for that condition that causes you to deny reality and science for the sake of your crackpot political and economic ideologies? "So sad".

Clearly it is you who has a problem with reality....you seem to think that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models are reality...why is that?

 

[Crick]

The measurement of the Earth's temperature is empirical data. The determination of past temperatures from proxies is an empirical observation.

God are you stupid.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Editorial IBD (Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?) 2/24/2017

Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled." But in fact, "science" itself is in a deep crisis...


...two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests." This isn't just his journalistic opinion, but the conclusion of the University of Virginia's Center for Open Science, which estimates that roughly 70% of all studies can't be reproduced...


...to reproduce others' experiments or findings from models is at the very heart of science...


...a government paper that called into question the 18-year "pause" in global warming was based on "experimental" data and politicized. That "paper" was used to justify President Obama's signing of the Paris climate agreement...


...University physicist Will Happer told the left-wing British newspaper the Guardian earlier this week: "There's a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult. ...

...Real science has nothing to fear from more openness and discussion, but everything to fear from more politicized dishonesty.​

=====

There are folks that say "I don't believe in a god, I believe in science". The problem w/ that is the fact that while science is an excellent method of inquiry it's horrible when it's turned into a belief system. This is becuase it's easier for folks to forget the substance of science (observation and analysis) and replace it w/ the form of science (guys w/ white coats and thick books pompously strutting). Personally, I vote against using my tax dollars to supplant the substance w/ the form.

It's basically the same tactic as "fake news". Just deny things, don't even bother arguing them, just say it's not true and then ignore.

 

[SSDD]

The measurement of the Earth's temperature is empirical data. The determination of past temperatures from proxies is an empirical observation.

God are you stupid.

And they have been massaged and tortured beyond recognition...and yet, you still believe them...God, but you are stupid...no rational justification has been given for the massive tampering of the data record..especially the huge changes of data from 40 to 100 years ago...

 

[SSDD]

Editorial IBD (Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?) 2/24/2017

Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled." But in fact, "science" itself is in a deep crisis...


...two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests." This isn't just his journalistic opinion, but the conclusion of the University of Virginia's Center for Open Science, which estimates that roughly 70% of all studies can't be reproduced...


...to reproduce others' experiments or findings from models is at the very heart of science...


...a government paper that called into question the 18-year "pause" in global warming was based on "experimental" data and politicized. That "paper" was used to justify President Obama's signing of the Paris climate agreement...


...University physicist Will Happer told the left-wing British newspaper the Guardian earlier this week: "There's a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult. ...

...Real science has nothing to fear from more openness and discussion, but everything to fear from more politicized dishonesty.​

=====

There are folks that say "I don't believe in a god, I believe in science". The problem w/ that is the fact that while science is an excellent method of inquiry it's horrible when it's turned into a belief system. This is becuase it's easier for folks to forget the substance of science (observation and analysis) and replace it w/ the form of science (guys w/ white coats and thick books pompously strutting). Personally, I vote against using my tax dollars to supplant the substance w/ the form.

It's basically the same tactic as "fake news". Just deny things, don't even bother arguing them, just say it's not true and then ignore.

When it isn't true, a rational person says just that...a member of the glassy eyed chanting cult attempts to defend the lie...

 

[Crick]

Out in the real world of scientific research, what points do you claim are ignored?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Editorial IBD (Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?) 2/24/2017

Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled."....​

....and it is "settled science", very much so! Only denier cult dingbats could possibly be so unhinged as to imagine that an unsigned editorial in a non-science magazine called 'Investors Business Daily' is somehow refuting the last 50 years of climate science.

In the real world....

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) [the world’s largest association of Earth scientists, with over 62,000 members from 144 countries.] adopted a statement on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases in 1998.[60] A new statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[61] and revised and expanded in 2013,[62] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

"Human activities are changing Earth's climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8 °C (1.5 °F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."
***

In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

"Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty first century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[68]"
***

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth's lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[73]"

What percentage of the Earths atmosphere is CO2? 0.04% , that is 4 1/100 of 1 percent, but because back 100 years ago, it was only 0.03% so with that miniscule amount added, the liberals must save the day, so pay them billions of dollars, so they can plant a tree. Come on man, are you fucking kidding me? Al Jazeera Gore, said that the Earth was warming and that it would burn up by 2010, yet we have seen sub zero weather(called the new term Polar Vortex, because it sounded dire) that was supposed to come from the melting Arctic(above 32 degrees) yet the Vortex was well below freezing(below 0 Degrees) and no one can answer, "Where did that COLD come from"? If you liberals want to stop MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE, then remove yourself from the planet, taking your CO2 footprint with you, when there are no more liberals left on the planet, then the rest of US can live in Climate Change which has been happening since the beginning of time.

Gore's Got It Wrong: It's Just Bad Weather | Human Events

Gore’s Got It Wrong: It’s Just Bad Weather

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Fuck. That particular paper was referring to social sciences. And the science, physics of absorption spectra of GHG gasses was established in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. Svante Arrhenius did the first quantitative analysis of the results of that in 1896. The prediction was that if you increased the GHGs in the atmosphere, the temperature of the atmosphere would increase. And it has.

One of the bugaboos of the denialists is the Mann graph. Yet other researchers have used different proxies, and even somewhat different stastitical methods, and came up with the same graph.

Climate science is on as solid of a surface as evolution.

LOL

I see you're still utterly confused and bumfuddled, CrazyFruitcake....just like always.

You trained agw monkeys never learn from your mistakes. You keep trying to Gobbels Big Lie that you've done anything resembling the scientific method when it comes to your failed, Bizzaroland ideas and I find it funny

 

[skookerasbil]

Today in REALCLEARENERGY................

The Environmentalist Left's New Agenda
Brian Rogers
March 01, 2017

Following the Republican sweep in last year’s election, the Environmentalist Left is now experiencing a total meltdown. “World War III is well and truly underway. And we are losing,” wrote Bill McKibben, founder of the climate activist group 350.org, and a key member of the Democrats’ platform committee last year.

Conceived by Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson and endorsed by McKibben and others, The Solutions Project is a plan to move America to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. McKibben offered glowing praise for the proposal in a recent op-ed, saying it comes “as close to winning this war [on climate change] as we could plausibly get.”

What’s more, even if this radical proposal were somehow muscled through Congress and the White House, their so-called Solutions Project would require a near-impossible pace of development over 34 years: 40 wind turbines per day, four full-sized solar plants per day, and 6,000 solar roof installations every day for 34 years.



The Environmentalist Left's New Agenda | RealClearEnergy



Yep......renewables are set to dominate the energy scene!!

 

[mamooth]

Before we spend money we need a reason, and so far nobody's presented reproducable scientific data that:

1. there are hard numbers proving how much the the temp of the biosphere's gone up since say, 50 years ago,
2. it's the kind of rise has never happened before in recorded history w/o causing so much harm that we want to spend $trillions,
3. people did it.
4. we could possibly stop it by spending $trillions to stop it.

That's all been presented, many times over. At this stage, your denial of the facts is just boring, being how we've seen it from other cultists hundreds of times before.

Believe me, I've looked and I haven't seen it

You know, there actually isn't a VastSecretGlobalSocialist plot. That's just a conspiracy theory you fell for. It takes serious narcissism to declare you know more than the scientific community of the whole planet, simply because you read a few political cult blogs. Not that it's forbidden to disagree with the world, but if you do, you better know the topic inside and out. Deniers know almost nothing about the topic, only what their cult has spoon fed them.

 

[mamooth]

What percentage of the Earths atmosphere is CO2? 0.04% , that is 4 1/100 of 1 percent, but because back 100 years ago, it was only 0.03% so with that miniscule amount added, the liberals must save the day, so pay them billions of dollars, so they can plant a tree. Come on man, are you fucking kidding me?

You inability to grasp the most basic logic and science is noted.

Given your complete igorance, you really shouldn't be annoying the grownups with your idiot childish prattle. Here's a juicebox. Go watch SpongeBob.

Al Jazeera Gore,

Gore Rule invoked. Whatever cultist talks about Gore first forfeits the thread for their side.

Gore isn't a scientist, so the rational people don't talk about him. Brainwashed and brainless denier cultists, however, can't talk about the science, because every bit of the science says deniers are making it all up. Hence, they often try to deflect from the science by demonizing a politician like Gore.

If you liberals want to stop MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE, then remove yourself from the planet, taking your CO2 footprint with you, when there are no more liberals left on the planet,

Oh look, yet another denier wishing death on people. They're a rather sociopathic and violent group, the deniers.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

What percentage of the Earths atmosphere is CO2? 0.04% , that is 4 1/100 of 1 percent, but because back 100 years ago, it was only 0.03% so with that miniscule amount added, the liberals must save the day, so pay them billions of dollars, so they can plant a tree. Come on man, are you fucking kidding me?

You inability to grasp the most basic logic and science is noted.

Given your complete igorance, you really shouldn't be annoying the grownups with your idiot childish prattle. Here's a juicebox. Go watch SpongeBob.

Al Jazeera Gore,

Gore Rule invoked. Whatever cultist talks about Gore first forfeits the thread for their side.

Gore isn't a scientist, so the rational people don't talk about him. Brainwashed and brainless denier cultists, however, can't talk about the science, because every bit of the science says deniers are making it all up. Hence, they often try to deflect from the science by demonizing a politician like Gore.

If you liberals want to stop MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE, then remove yourself from the planet, taking your CO2 footprint with you, when there are no more liberals left on the planet,

Oh look, yet another denier wishing death on people. They're a rather sociopathic and violent group, the deniers.

From the mouth of mammamoothie. I am very well versed in science, and I know for sure, with you political hacks out there stealing money from the hard working class, so you can give it to the shmoe's like you, who are too stupid to know how to work. Let me again show you PROOF.....

Latest Posts

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

I used to be amazed at how stupid a liberal is. I don't doubt it anymore, for I have met plenty of liberals and YES they are stupid...

 

[mamooth]

From the mouth of mammamoothie. I am very well versed in science, and I know for sure, with you political hacks out there stealing money from the hard working class, so you can give it to the shmoe's like you, who are too stupid to know how to work. Let me again show you PROOF.....

One of the things that I pointed out was how you only get information from cult blogs ... and you responded by linking to one of those cult blogs.

Thanks for confirming my point like that.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

What percentage of the Earths atmosphere is CO2? 0.04% , that is 4 1/100 of 1 percent, but because back 100 years ago, it was only 0.03% so with that miniscule amount added, the liberals must save the day, so pay them billions of dollars, so they can plant a tree. Come on man, are you fucking kidding me?

You inability to grasp the most basic logic and science is noted.

Given your complete igorance, you really shouldn't be annoying the grownups with your idiot childish prattle. Here's a juicebox. Go watch SpongeBob.

Al Jazeera Gore,

Gore Rule invoked. Whatever cultist talks about Gore first forfeits the thread for their side.

Gore isn't a scientist, so the rational people don't talk about him. Brainwashed and brainless denier cultists, however, can't talk about the science, because every bit of the science says deniers are making it all up. Hence, they often try to deflect from the science by demonizing a politician like Gore.

If you liberals want to stop MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE, then remove yourself from the planet, taking your CO2 footprint with you, when there are no more liberals left on the planet,

Oh look, yet another denier wishing death on people. They're a rather sociopathic and violent group, the deniers.

I am not the one blaming Humans for climate change or overpopulation and having babies born or unborn executed before they get a chance in life. Come on , put some man pants on, grow a pair, if you think that CO2 is making the Earth warmer, then take the first step, bring some of your liberal friends, and when it is all said and done, it will be magic as liberals cant complain about Man Made Climate Change, because there will be no more liberals. Then everyone else can be happy.

60 Hard Truths About "Liberals"

60 Hard Truths about "Liberals"

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

From the mouth of mammamoothie. I am very well versed in science, and I know for sure, with you political hacks out there stealing money from the hard working class, so you can give it to the shmoe's like you, who are too stupid to know how to work. Let me again show you PROOF.....

One of the things that I pointed out was how you only get information from cult blogs ... and you responded by linking to one of those cult blogs.

Thanks for confirming my point like that.

I guess if I got my information from CNN, then you would be okay with that? Bwaaaaahhhaaaahhhhaaaaa.... You so funny....

 

[mamooth]

I guess if I got my information from CNN, then you would be okay with that?

Obviously not, as it's not a scientific source, and it displays a strong right-wing political bias.

First, you need to start getting your info from scientific sources, like the rational people here do.

Second, you need to stop making butthurt political rants about how much you hate the liberals for beating you up on the playground and stealing your girl and having all the fun and always humiliating you on message boards. You're supposed to be pretending you're not a bedwetting right-wing political crank. You can't pull off that deception if you're constantly crying about the mean ol' liberals.