sunsettommy

I am leery of anything from David Corn. But the TV ads are damning. Vitter has apparently failed to live what he preaches. He should from this point one just shut up since he has no credibility to stand on. Thanks for the reply.

Just curious. Did the Senator preach "family Values"? I have no idea what he stands for.

His crime was not answering questions about the relationship. The affair itself was not a crime. True his infidelity was not worth the partisan investigation. The problem is that Clinton OBSTRUCTED that investigation,compelled a few people to lie for him and slander some of the women. The rest is history.

Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla What is your point of this thread you started?

We already have a coalition of countries. Did the wars and genocide stop?

Ok then we stop protecting Canada,Mexico,Cuba,Japan and most of Europe. Call the American troops home and let all you guys fend for yourself. LOL

I am biting his slender ankles to let him know that he is being dishonest and ignorant to boot.

Who says the planet is not warming? Why are you playing this merry go round with me? Remember this post? That was from post # 47. You reply was ,............................................. well nothing really.You just ignored it and went on. I am fast developing a negative opinion of you.

Xman ask: Answer that is based on a PUBLISHED paper: 180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods Ernst-Georg Beck http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm April 13, 2007 Methane Matters http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...ethane-matters/ Or: Science vs. Gore on Methane Volume 10, Number 16: 18 April 2007 http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...10/N16/EDIT.jsp Or: Decreasing emissions of methane from rice agriculture M.A.K. Khalila, , and M.J. Shearerb aDepartment of Physics, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751, USA bEnvironmental Science and Resources Program, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA Available online 8 July 2006. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...62973bff1206b32

I'm a conservative and, having looked at the facts of climate change, can't fathom why anyone would consider it a partisan issue. Most people on the right have accepted the science. There are a few wingnuts out there from both sides of the political spectrum who believe in conspiracy theories and reject it as a socialist plot. They're mostly confined to anonymous posters on the internet though (and invariably they have about a Grade 3 level of grammar and spelling). No one with any credibility denies that climate change is happening. Climate models as science.That is what you must say since the endgame of the alarmists have been built around it. By the way can you tell us how you know that most of the people on the right accept the science? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

Not only is there consensus on global warming, there's consensus on how to spell "consensus." You can try and debate both all you want, but in both cases you wind up looking stupid. When will you reply to the links article?

Besides, for anonymous internet posters who have to contend with the entire credible scientific community telling them they haven't a clue, there's nothing left to do but to swift-boat. Perhaps it's time to start questioning why Gore was just a journalist in the Vietnam war. At least Al gore did not make his tiny vietnam war service a centerpiece of his presidential candidacy. John Kerry on the other hand lied and distorted over and over again about his short vietnam service. Kerry swifboated himself by his own words and those who served with him and around him. It is telling that you never did offer a rebuttal to the threads link. LOL

You are too far off topic now. How about answering some of my questions you ignored last night instead? Meanwhile have you bothered to read the website that is about Auditing weather reporting stations?

Citation? LOL, You must be new to this topic because this well known. Just go look up the MSU Satellite temperature data. Compare with the Surface temperature data you have in one of your links. They do not line up at all.

Are you into UFO's too? I bet there's loads of links about dat der 2. NOPE

My...do your girls talk with potty mouth too? For shame. You should know better. You are welcome to report me to the Moderator if you want. Ciao!

That is not the purpose of the Audit. Watts already knows that we have had a warming trend since the mid 1880's It is for the purpose of accuracy of the data. We keep getting strongly contradicting data between Surface temperature data and the Satellite data. Have you ever wondered why Xman? My wife is the "teddy" and my two girls have the stuffed ones.

http://www.surfacestations.org/about.htm Try the above link for the rest of it.What is posted here is an EXCERPT. In the link are many links shown to be imbedded in this excerpt. About What is the purpose of this website? This website was created in response to the realization that very little physical site survey data exists for the entire United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) and Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN) surface station records worldwide. This realization came about from a discussion of a paper and some new information that occurred on Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog. In particular, a thread regarding the paper: Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res. in press. and a subsequent posting in regards to comments in a thread discussing was a catalyst for the creation of this website. Why are you doing this? Isn't this the responsibility of our government agency NOAA? Yes NOAA is responsible for the operation, documentation and upkeep of the USHCN set of weather stations. In fact in 1997 there were concerns expressed by a National Research Council panel about the state of the climate measuring network. In 1999, a U.S. National Research Council panel was commissioned to study the state of the U.S. climate observing systems and issued a report entitled: “Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems. National Academy Press”, online here The panel was chaired by Dr. Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Center, and Dr. James Hansen, lead climate researcher at NASA GISS. That panel concluded: "The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating." Yet, ten years later, even the most basic beginning of a recovery program has not been started. No online photographic database existed of the USHCN stations, and despite repeated requests from Dr. Robert A. Peilke Senior at CIRES the project has not been undertaken. Given the lack of movement on the part of NOAA and NCDC, Dr. Peilke also made requests of state climatologists to perform photographic site surveys. A couple responded, such as Roger Taylor in Oregon, and Dev Nyogi in Indiana, but many cited "costs" of such work to thier meager budgets as a reason not to perform surveys. Given such a massive failure of bureaucracy to perform something so simple as taking some photographs and making some measurements and notes of a few to a few dozen weather stations in each state, it seemed that a grass roots network of volunteers could easily accomplish this task.

I have to call it a night. But in parting I will say that I help run a Climate skeptic forum.This means I read many links and post some of them on the homepage.Some of it has been about the Auditing process. This is why I know that what Anthony Watts is doing is good since what he is doing is trying to improve the use of the data.Buy first examining the quality of the equipment and the locations they are installed.

That's incredible. You have proven your point as well as possible. That is why you NEED to look it over and read the reactions to it. Yes it is incredible and James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt have made their responses to it. I read them and they have not stated any previous Auditing efforts.

Always consider the source. Yup YOU have no rebuttal to offer just juvenile and stupid smears. LOL Another superficial AGW is all I see in you. There has been many responses by a number of climate scientists.But you do not know since you are too busy being ignorant of what is going on.I have read many of their comments over the Auditing process. You have not read anything since you are NOT interested in learning the issue.

Written by Xman: Where oh where are those rebuttals? Smears are not valid rebuttals fella. There has NEVER been an Audit of all the SURFACE weather reporting stations. Anthony Watts you have smeared so quickly is the first person to do it. Your ignorance is obvious.

I looked for the 2007 report, but it shows that is has not yet been released. May I have a link to it? LOL you are so far out of the loop you failed to know that portions have been released already. Reviewers have commented on it. I will not bother providing any more links because you already smeared Anthony watts like the ignoramus you must be since you had a grand total of 15 minutes to make the smear all the while not a single rebuttal was ever made against the Auditing process.The website if properly read would take a few hours. You indicate to me that you care less about the Auditing of official weather reportion stations. Pathetic.

I agreed with nothing. I'd like to see some citations. I already posted the link and you already were there. Too bad you tried a dumb smear on Anthony Watts. It must suck to have no rebutting material against the Auditing process. Why you even doing this since you are showing you ignorance so openly?

Does that mean that all projections are not scientific? When they can not be validated or falsified. NO! Did you even look at the chart I responded to? Take note at how far into the future they were projecting. This is worthless stuff when we can not know for at least 100 years that they are close to the real climate. Maybe you go read what the "scientific method" is before you want to continue using this unverifiable stuff again.