March, Dr. Roy Spencer

[Big Fitz]

March? As in Frog march?

So, what pray tell should become of your idolized frauds of Hansen, Mann and Jensen?

Slap on the wrist?
$50 fine and suspended sentence?
Community service?

If you think Dr. Spencer should be arrested, these three criminals should be hung and left for the public to desecrate the bodies if this is the case.

 

[Old Rocks]

Complete and total exoneration, if you had not noticed.

http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf

RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct
Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology,
College of Earth and Mineral Sciences,
The Pennsylvania State University
February 3, 2010
RA-10 Inquiry Committee for the Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann:
Henry C. Foley, Ph.D.
Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School
Alan W. Scaroni, Ph.D.
Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research,
College of Earth and Mineral Sciences
Ms. Candice A. Yekel, M.S., CIM,
Director, Office for Research Protections
Research Integrity Officer

Climate change scandal: MPs exonerate professor - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent


Professor Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the scandal over the leak of sensitive emails from a university computer, has been largely exonerated by a powerful cross-party committee of MPs who said his scientific reputation remains intact.


There was no evidence that Professor Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), deliberately withheld or manipulated data in order to support the idea that global warming was real and that it was influenced by human activities, according to a report by the Commons Science and Technology Committee.

However, the MPs criticised Professor Jones and climate scientists in general for being too possessive and secretive about the raw scientific data and computer codes they use to establish the link between global warming and human activities. They also criticised the UEA for fostering a culture of non-disclosure of scientific information to climate sceptics.

Related articles
New regulations on energy efficiency 'mired in confusion'
Leading article: Climate change fightback, part 1
Search the news archive for more stories
The committee's inquiry into the leak of private emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) last November found no evidence to suggest that the hallowed peer review process had been subverted by Professor Jones, and no reason to question the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is influenced by human activities.

And there have been no charges against Dr. Hansen at all, in spite of the wishes of the Neo-con wingnuts after he exposed the Bush administrations censureship of science. I assumed you meant Jones, not Jensen. Jensen being the author of a book skeptical of global warming.


And who the hell was speaking of arresting Dr. Spencer? I used his figures in the OP in case you had not noticed.

 

[gslack]

The global-average lower tropospheric temperature continues to be quite warm: +0.65 deg. C for March, 2010. This is about the same as January. Global average sea surface temperatures (not shown) remain high.

MARCH 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.65 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Dude seriously, what the f_ck ever..... It means squat. So its warm right now, it was cold before and you cried about it being no evidence against AGW.

Except it wasn't COLD it was WET. This was actually the 5th warmest winter in the history of direct instrument measurement.

All winter it was the deniers on this board who, with every snowfall, were equating snow with cold and claiming that the snowfall proved we were experiencing record cold and we were starting in a new ice age for the last 15 years.
Remember?

No one equates better than the algorians. You guys equate lack of snowfall with a warming planet, you equate current short term weather with climate, and just about everything else one can imagine according to your side is evidence of AGW. But let us use the same kind of logic and reason and you cry about it...

Well don't use this kind of logic if its wrong..

 

[gslack]

Complete and total exoneration, if you had not noticed.

http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf

RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct
Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology,
College of Earth and Mineral Sciences,
The Pennsylvania State University
February 3, 2010
RA-10 Inquiry Committee for the Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann:
Henry C. Foley, Ph.D.
Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School
Alan W. Scaroni, Ph.D.
Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research,
College of Earth and Mineral Sciences
Ms. Candice A. Yekel, M.S., CIM,
Director, Office for Research Protections
Research Integrity Officer

Climate change scandal: MPs exonerate professor - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent


Professor Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the scandal over the leak of sensitive emails from a university computer, has been largely exonerated by a powerful cross-party committee of MPs who said his scientific reputation remains intact.


There was no evidence that Professor Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), deliberately withheld or manipulated data in order to support the idea that global warming was real and that it was influenced by human activities, according to a report by the Commons Science and Technology Committee.

However, the MPs criticised Professor Jones and climate scientists in general for being too possessive and secretive about the raw scientific data and computer codes they use to establish the link between global warming and human activities. They also criticised the UEA for fostering a culture of non-disclosure of scientific information to climate sceptics.

Related articles
New regulations on energy efficiency 'mired in confusion'
Leading article: Climate change fightback, part 1
Search the news archive for more stories
The committee's inquiry into the leak of private emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) last November found no evidence to suggest that the hallowed peer review process had been subverted by Professor Jones, and no reason to question the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is influenced by human activities.

And there have been no charges against Dr. Hansen at all, in spite of the wishes of the Neo-con wingnuts after he exposed the Bush administrations censureship of science. I assumed you meant Jones, not Jensen. Jensen being the author of a book skeptical of global warming.


And who the hell was speaking of arresting Dr. Spencer? I used his figures in the OP in case you had not noticed.

Going to try this lie again?

We went over this already, the house of commons cannot exonerate him. Its not their job. Matter of fact the group they sent to take care of this PR showjob are not even supposed to be doing this at all.

Re-posting a lie doesn't make it true.....

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, yes, they can. They are politicians, and the charges against CRU and Dr. Jones were political, not scientific or legal. No science body stated that the data was corrupted, no justice system brought any kind of charges. It was a political charge, brought by liars who would deny reality for profits. And the political system in Britian exonerated Dr. Jones and the CRU.

As with Dr. Mann, the revelant bodies looked at the evidence and concluded that it was defamation of character by people with interests vested in keeping the use of fossil energy as it is today.

The scientists have been shown to be the focus of a conspiracy of lies by political hacks.

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, yes, they can. They are politicians, and the charges against CRU and Dr. Jones were political, not scientific or legal. No science body stated that the data was corrupted, no justice system brought any kind of charges. It was a political charge, brought by liars who would deny reality for profits. And the political system in Britian exonerated Dr. Jones and the CRU.

As with Dr. Mann, the revelant bodies looked at the evidence and concluded that it was defamation of character by people with interests vested in keeping the use of fossil energy as it is today.

The scientists have been shown to be the focus of a conspiracy of lies by political hacks.

Riiiiiight. Keep on worshiping at their feet.

 

[gslack]

Well, yes, they can. They are politicians, and the charges against CRU and Dr. Jones were political, not scientific or legal. No science body stated that the data was corrupted, no justice system brought any kind of charges. It was a political charge, brought by liars who would deny reality for profits. And the political system in Britian exonerated Dr. Jones and the CRU.

As with Dr. Mann, the revelant bodies looked at the evidence and concluded that it was defamation of character by people with interests vested in keeping the use of fossil energy as it is today.

The scientists have been shown to be the focus of a conspiracy of lies by political hacks.

NO they cannot, the courts decide guilt. The house of commons are a legislative body, not a judicial one. And frankly there has been no mention of charges to my knowledge. Until then and they hold the CRU and the UEA charged with something any and all claims of exoneration or non-guilt is a PR snowjob.

Now want to address the fact your links try to place the blame off of the CRU and place it on the university they are located in, pretending they are not functionally one and the same?

LOL, its hilarious really. They say oh well the DR. isn't responsible because he was working for the CRU and following their protocol. But the CRU aren't responsible because it was a protocol setup by the UEA and the climate science community....

LOL, the University of East Anglia hosts the Climate Research Unit. And they are one of the heads of the climate science community. Tell me again how its not a PR job?

They blame each other and then no one is responsible. Unbelievable...

 

[edthecynic]

Dude seriously, what the f_ck ever..... It means squat. So its warm right now, it was cold before and you cried about it being no evidence against AGW.

Except it wasn't COLD it was WET. This was actually the 5th warmest winter in the history of direct instrument measurement.

All winter it was the deniers on this board who, with every snowfall, were equating snow with cold and claiming that the snowfall proved we were experiencing record cold and we were starting in a new ice age for the last 15 years.
Remember?

No one equates better than the algorians. You guys equate lack of snowfall with a warming planet, you equate current short term weather with climate, and just about everything else one can imagine according to your side is evidence of AGW. But let us use the same kind of logic and reason and you cry about it...

Well don't use this kind of logic if its wrong..

You can always spot the mindless brainwashed DittoTards a mile away! Their MessiahRushie told them to spell gore's name as one word, and they are powerless to do anything different.

The only people equating short term localized weather with climate are you deniers. See the first quote in my sig.

Scientists are using a 100 year warming trend to support their claim of global warming.

 

[code1211]

What else would one expect from gslack? Perhaps you are ignorant enough to not understand just who Dr. Roy Spencer is?

Roy Spencer is a researcher who is very knowledgable in Climate Science and presents data and anaysis of that data.

He does not parrot the AGW Party line and is therefore condemned by AGW Proponents as a bought and paid for mouthpiece of the fossil fuel industry despite the FACT that he has not accepted any money from the sources most often linked by the hysterical to prove that he has no standing in this discussion for several years.

When the data he presents supports the ideas of the AGW Proponents they present it saying that even the people against the idea have conceded. The truth is that the impartial, like Dr. Spencer present the data, not the conclusion.

The converted, like Dr. Hansen, present the conclusion and the data that supports that one conclusion.

One of these men falls into the categories of researcher or scientist while the other falls into the categories of proponent or disciple.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dr. Roy Spencer is one of the very few sceptics with any credibility within science. However, Dr. Hansen is considered to be even more credible.

 

[edthecynic]

What else would one expect from gslack? Perhaps you are ignorant enough to not understand just who Dr. Roy Spencer is?

Roy Spencer is a researcher who is very knowledgable in Climate Science and presents data and anaysis of that data.

He does not parrot the AGW Party line and is therefore condemned by AGW Proponents as a bought and paid for mouthpiece of the fossil fuel industry despite the FACT that he has not accepted any money from the sources most often linked by the hysterical to prove that he has no standing in this discussion for several years.

When the data he presents supports the ideas of the AGW Proponents they present it saying that even the people against the idea have conceded. The truth is that the impartial, like Dr. Spencer present the data, not the conclusion.

The converted, like Dr. Hansen, present the conclusion and the data that supports that one conclusion.

One of these men falls into the categories of researcher or scientist while the other falls into the categories of proponent or disciple.

That's the rationalization CON$ spew, but the real reason Spencer is condemned is because along with his partner Christy they were caught fudging the satellite data. They were caught using the opposite sign when calculating diurnal satellite drift, a mistake no "expert" could make accidently.

For a decade deniers claimed Christy and Spencer's cooked UAH data was the ONLY accurate data and used it to discredit all other data and scientists that supported global warming. Once the correct sign was used the UAH data matched all the other data that showed global warming and suddenly UAH data is no longer acceptable to deniers.
What a surprise...NOT!

 

[Big Fitz]

Complete and total exoneration, if you had not noticed.

And there have been no charges against Dr. Hansen at all, in spite of the wishes of the Neo-con wingnuts after he exposed the Bush administrations censureship of science. I assumed you meant Jones, not Jensen. Jensen being the author of a book skeptical of global warming.


And who the hell was speaking of arresting Dr. Spencer? I used his figures in the OP in case you had not noticed.

Going to try this lie again?

We went over this already, the house of commons cannot exonerate him. Its not their job. Matter of fact the group they sent to take care of this PR showjob are not even supposed to be doing this at all.

Re-posting a lie doesn't make it true.....

According to Goebbels it does. Maybe it's being hoped that his 'logic' still holds true. Works even better with BIG lies, like Anthropogenic Global Warming because nobody'd believe someone in power would do such a horrible thing and disbelief works for you.

 

[code1211]

Dr. Roy Spencer is one of the very few sceptics with any credibility within science. However, Dr. Hansen is considered to be even more credible.

This is a conundrum to me since the data is not all that convincing. Being a skeptic means simply that there is more proof needed for any doubt to be removed. How anyone within the scientific community could not be a skeptic on this and still have any credibility is beyond me.

This seems akin to believing that UFO's have landed on Earth piloted by aliens from extra terrestrial civiliztions. I believe it's likely that alien life might exist. With decreasing liklihood are the following steps for the landing to occur:

They must have evolved to a very intelligent race.

They must have forged a higher understanding of science.

They must have discovered an energy source that is unknown to us.

They must have not destroyed themselves on their own world.

They must have a compelloing desire to explore space.

They must have an intensely thorough search method to have found us.

They must have plenty of wealth to finance the endeavor.

They had no accidents in getting here.

They were able to avoid every person on the planet with a cell phone camera.

They landed on Earth.

 

[gslack]

Except it wasn't COLD it was WET. This was actually the 5th warmest winter in the history of direct instrument measurement.

All winter it was the deniers on this board who, with every snowfall, were equating snow with cold and claiming that the snowfall proved we were experiencing record cold and we were starting in a new ice age for the last 15 years.
Remember?

No one equates better than the algorians. You guys equate lack of snowfall with a warming planet, you equate current short term weather with climate, and just about everything else one can imagine according to your side is evidence of AGW. But let us use the same kind of logic and reason and you cry about it...

Well don't use this kind of logic if its wrong..

You can always spot the mindless brainwashed DittoTards a mile away! Their MessiahRushie told them to spell gore's name as one word, and they are powerless to do anything different.

The only people equating short term localized weather with climate are you deniers. See the first quote in my sig.

Scientists are using a 100 year warming trend to support their claim of global warming.

I ignored your insulting and ignorant bs excuse making because it was a conversation between oldrocks and I. And acknowledging your BS will only fuel you on. But I see you will keep on anyway, so lets get this over with now.....

You got some things wrong dipshit!

150 years of collected temps to decide what the norm is for a planet that is billions of years old..... Wow and you talk about science? HAHAHHAHAHA! keep talking about it because thats what you can handle. The reality of it you obviously don't get yet....

150 years of temps or 100 years of warming resulting in 1.4 degrees average temp increase, is like taking one grain of sand and saying all the rest of Virginia Beach must be judged by this one grain. WTF kind of science is that?

Also, dumazz they claimed to have gotten much of their previous comparative data from reconstructions using ice cores, tree rings, geological studies, and various other disciplines. These extrapolations rely on sophisticated computer modeling software, that is always updating and is continually found in error.

This is true even by al gore's own defense against the "hockey stick" graph inaccuracy. he even said at the time he got the chart the software had poor resolution by todays standards and the errors were a result of that.

Computer errors or not, the fact his chart made the medieval warming period and the little ice age almost non-existent is a telling example of science theory becoming science fact put of sheer nothing.

One of the biggest problems you little gaia worshiping hypocrites fail to acknowledge in the whole thing is the fact the warming trails the CO2 saturation point by 400-600 years or more... If it trails the saturation point by so long how can they claim all the crap they claim will happen in 100 years? They can't and thats the sad truth.

You are an idiot, and you don't know shit about me. Learn about me before you go off claiming I follow any talking head pundit.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No one equates better than the algorians. You guys equate lack of snowfall with a warming planet, you equate current short term weather with climate, and just about everything else one can imagine according to your side is evidence of AGW. But let us use the same kind of logic and reason and you cry about it...

Well don't use this kind of logic if its wrong..

You can always spot the mindless brainwashed DittoTards a mile away! Their MessiahRushie told them to spell gore's name as one word, and they are powerless to do anything different.

The only people equating short term localized weather with climate are you deniers. See the first quote in my sig.

Scientists are using a 100 year warming trend to support their claim of global warming.

I ignored your insulting and ignorant bs excuse making because it was a conversation between oldrocks and I. And acknowledging your BS will only fuel you on. But I see you will keep on anyway, so lets get this over with now.....

You got some things wrong dipshit!

150 years of collected temps to decide what the norm is for a planet that is billions of years old..... Wow and you talk about science? HAHAHHAHAHA! keep talking about it because thats what you can handle. The reality of it you obviously don't get yet....

150 years of temps or 100 years of warming resulting in 1.4 degrees average temp increase, is like taking one grain of sand and saying all the rest of Virginia Beach must be judged by this one grain. WTF kind of science is that?

Also, dumazz they claimed to have gotten much of their previous comparative data from reconstructions using ice cores, tree rings, geological studies, and various other disciplines. These extrapolations rely on sophisticated computer modeling software, that is always updating and is continually found in error.

This is true even by al gore's own defense against the "hockey stick" graph inaccuracy. he even said at the time he got the chart the software had poor resolution by todays standards and the errors were a result of that.

Computer errors or not, the fact his chart made the medieval warming period and the little ice age almost non-existent is a telling example of science theory becoming science fact put of sheer nothing.

One of the biggest problems you little gaia worshiping hypocrites fail to acknowledge in the whole thing is the fact the warming trails the CO2 saturation point by 400-600 years or more... If it trails the saturation point by so long how can they claim all the crap they claim will happen in 100 years? They can't and thats the sad truth.

You are an idiot, and you don't know shit about me. Learn about me before you go off claiming I follow any talking head pundit.....

And to this day they cannot point to a single laboratory experiment showing how an increase of CO2 from 280PPM to 600MM increases the temperature in a controlled environment.

 

[Old Rocks]

We can clearly show that a rise from 280 ppm to 385 ppm has increased the temperature on this planet. We can clearly show that the rise from 180 ppm to 300 ppm 120,000 years ago created a world with a sea level much higher than that of today.

We can clearly show the absorbtion bands for water vapor, CO2, CH4, NOx, as well as many industrial GHGs.

All you can show is politically motivated yap-yap, with zero scientific backing.

 

[gslack]

We can clearly show that a rise from 280 ppm to 385 ppm has increased the temperature on this planet. We can clearly show that the rise from 180 ppm to 300 ppm 120,000 years ago created a world with a sea level much higher than that of today.

We can clearly show the absorbtion bands for water vapor, CO2, CH4, NOx, as well as many industrial GHGs.

All you can show is politically motivated yap-yap, with zero scientific backing.

No you can't show any of this... Scientists can in controlled environments, but YOU cannot prove any of this. And all the other gases are not the point here. No one is trying to impose a tax on those other gases only CO2 so don't try the douchebag tactic now...

Whats more as any science student can tell you, an experiment or results gotten in a controlled environment with an already anticipated outcome results in evidence to back a theory. it does not make it factual in a real world application, just as a computer generated model based on those experiments give you a very dubious prediction at best.

Once again we see you using theory as a statement of fact. Now go read something on basic scientific process before you talk science again....

You ding-dong wanna be internet climatologists crack me up with this crap... You take a theory of this, a theory told to you by a politician or biased media ignorant to the reality and trying to sell a ideology, and you go nuts with it. is it factual? You don't know and it doesn't matter to you anyway the magic box told you so and the magic box is god now.

It doesn't matter how many holes are in the theory, how many times you have to stretch to defend it, or how often they are shown in error or outright lying, you go right on defending it blindly ignoring reality in favor of feel good rhetoric and placating nonsense. They tell you that you are needed to save the planet or else it will die. And you dipshits are willing to sell your soul to push it. The people who told you can be shown to be lying hypocrites out to make themselves wealthy off this and you go right on. The so-called expert scientists can be shown to have been doctoring data or hiding their findings to support this despite its being unsound and you go right on ahead excuse making and denying.... UN F"ING BELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously wake up! you have been had, time to call them on it now....

 

[edthecynic]

No one equates better than the algorians. You guys equate lack of snowfall with a warming planet, you equate current short term weather with climate, and just about everything else one can imagine according to your side is evidence of AGW. But let us use the same kind of logic and reason and you cry about it...

Well don't use this kind of logic if its wrong..

You can always spot the mindless brainwashed DittoTards a mile away! Their MessiahRushie told them to spell gore's name as one word, and they are powerless to do anything different.

The only people equating short term localized weather with climate are you deniers. See the first quote in my sig.

Scientists are using a 100 year warming trend to support their claim of global warming.

I ignored your insulting and ignorant bs excuse making because it was a conversation between oldrocks and I. And acknowledging your BS will only fuel you on. But I see you will keep on anyway, so lets get this over with now.....

You got some things wrong dipshit!

150 years of collected temps to decide what the norm is for a planet that is billions of years old..... Wow and you talk about science? HAHAHHAHAHA! keep talking about it because thats what you can handle. The reality of it you obviously don't get yet....

150 years of temps or 100 years of warming resulting in 1.4 degrees average temp increase, is like taking one grain of sand and saying all the rest of Virginia Beach must be judged by this one grain. WTF kind of science is that?

Also, dumazz they claimed to have gotten much of their previous comparative data from reconstructions using ice cores, tree rings, geological studies, and various other disciplines. These extrapolations rely on sophisticated computer modeling software, that is always updating and is continually found in error.

This is true even by al gore's own defense against the "hockey stick" graph inaccuracy. he even said at the time he got the chart the software had poor resolution by todays standards and the errors were a result of that.

Computer errors or not, the fact his chart made the medieval warming period and the little ice age almost non-existent is a telling example of science theory becoming science fact put of sheer nothing.

One of the biggest problems you little gaia worshiping hypocrites fail to acknowledge in the whole thing is the fact the warming trails the CO2 saturation point by 400-600 years or more... If it trails the saturation point by so long how can they claim all the crap they claim will happen in 100 years? They can't and thats the sad truth.

You are an idiot, and you don't know shit about me. Learn about me before you go off claiming I follow any talking head pundit.....

Can't handle the truth I see.

And your Straw Men proves you know you are full of it!
Nowhere does my post or chart say anything about a "normal" temp, it merely shows a warming TREND over a 100 year period.

And obviously I know you better than you know yourself since you didn't come up with spelling Gore's name as one word on your own. You were Programmed by your MessiahRushie and you mindlessly obeyed your master.

 

[gslack]

You can always spot the mindless brainwashed DittoTards a mile away! Their MessiahRushie told them to spell gore's name as one word, and they are powerless to do anything different.

The only people equating short term localized weather with climate are you deniers. See the first quote in my sig.

Scientists are using a 100 year warming trend to support their claim of global warming.

I ignored your insulting and ignorant bs excuse making because it was a conversation between oldrocks and I. And acknowledging your BS will only fuel you on. But I see you will keep on anyway, so lets get this over with now.....

You got some things wrong dipshit!

150 years of collected temps to decide what the norm is for a planet that is billions of years old..... Wow and you talk about science? HAHAHHAHAHA! keep talking about it because thats what you can handle. The reality of it you obviously don't get yet....

150 years of temps or 100 years of warming resulting in 1.4 degrees average temp increase, is like taking one grain of sand and saying all the rest of Virginia Beach must be judged by this one grain. WTF kind of science is that?

Also, dumazz they claimed to have gotten much of their previous comparative data from reconstructions using ice cores, tree rings, geological studies, and various other disciplines. These extrapolations rely on sophisticated computer modeling software, that is always updating and is continually found in error.

This is true even by al gore's own defense against the "hockey stick" graph inaccuracy. he even said at the time he got the chart the software had poor resolution by todays standards and the errors were a result of that.

Computer errors or not, the fact his chart made the medieval warming period and the little ice age almost non-existent is a telling example of science theory becoming science fact put of sheer nothing.

One of the biggest problems you little gaia worshiping hypocrites fail to acknowledge in the whole thing is the fact the warming trails the CO2 saturation point by 400-600 years or more... If it trails the saturation point by so long how can they claim all the crap they claim will happen in 100 years? They can't and thats the sad truth.

You are an idiot, and you don't know shit about me. Learn about me before you go off claiming I follow any talking head pundit.....

Can't handle the truth I see.

And your Straw Men proves you know you are full of it!
Nowhere does my post or chart say anything about a "normal" temp, it merely shows a warming TREND over a 100 year period.

And obviously I know you better than you know yourself since you didn't come up with spelling Gore's name as one word on your own. You were Programmed by your MessiahRushie and you mindlessly obeyed your master.

Look moron how do you decide what is considered a normal temp? How did they? Well according to your idiotic and uninformed azz they took 100 years and said this is not normal.......

Now if you want to call someone a zealot or something, look into who or what they believe in.... Fact is azzhole I have no afinity for rush or beck or any other talking head. That is the reality of a thinking person as opposed to a person who lets the media think for him like you.....

You and your ilk like to paint everyone a certain way to simplify your argument and make it seem defensible. Well dumbazz I am a part of the reality you cannot fathom. You cannot grasp it because your life is an ideology and an ideology doesn't have to exist on its own, its an intangible and therefore defending it is as easy as saying "no you are wrong" and making any excuse you can think of. Ideology in practice is never what its proponents tell you its going to be... But then again you wouldn't understand that anyway would you...

Simply put for your ignorant azz... The fact you did not address any of my points, and continued to claim I worship Rush Limbaugh (whom I never watch or listen to), with no evidence to the fact, shows what an ignorant little liberal tool you really are.. Now go and read something not on your liberal approved reading list for once and experience some reality....

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, gslack continues to show his complete idiocy and ignorance.

Look boy, see the graphs that Ed posted? Now why don't you post some from a credible source to support your point of view?

How about some articles from peer reviewed scientific journals that support your point of view? You do know what those are

Don't worry about CO2 tax. By the time we get around to it, the people of the world will be demanding a cessation of GHG emission, period. Of course, it will be far too late, but that is what is going to happen.