sunsettommy

Did you get this part? Where did such a large super cold air mass come from?

Argus: Please elaborate. Cutting Taxes are great for the economy. The Republicans when in power reduce the tax burden. The Democrats when in power increase the tax burden. The problem is that there is no reduction in congressional spending.Both parties have this problem. The Democrats however have created the bigger problem.They created Medicare and medicaid along with Social Security.These programs are heading for the cliff into bankrupcty. I agree with you about the incumbents. Many of them get corrupted and also knee deep into pork barrel spending. The voters seems oblivious to the fact that their vote gets wasted regularly. The Blacks vote for a party that takes them for granted. The Jews vote for a party that does not share their vision of supporting Israel. America is a Constitutional Republic.NOT a Democracy.

i forgot to credit it - its great stuff though eh?I thought it drivel written by someone with a axe to grind and a tenuous grasp of the facts - typical fodder for an internet column. I was surprised to find out that it was written by a so-called 'professional' columnist Please tell us where she went wrong on those "tenuous facts".

And many right wingers say Brian Mulroney wasn't a true Conservative. You say he was? Mulroney has been warning the Conservatives all week to make the environment an issue but we have Conservative people disputing here that there is any environmental problems. He was the LEADER of the Progressive CONSERVATIVE Party.

Perhaps you forgot the various treaties that were signed and the reductions in sulfur emissions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_Emiss...uction_Protocol Do you have citations for it being all nonsense? You still think it came from ducks? Have you seen the 1990 Federal acid rain report? A 10 year long study. $500,000 cost.

You're probably right. However, it's no fantasy that the bulk of the financing against any and all environmental concerns comes from the energy sector. What is a rebuttal? You provide NOTHING! The scientists have been buffeted by politicians and environmentalists over the issue long before the energy sector had much to say. Try actual rebuttals instead and maybe you have something for us to learn from?

And again you back up your claim with Steve Milloy, and his discredited website. What is a rebuttal?

No scientist finds your hacks credible. Your guy gets paid as a PR guy for the benefits of global warming. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/7/27/1738/42872 "Michaels is infamous among climate change scientists for arguing that global warming could be beneficial. In a 2004 editorial available on the Cato Institute website, he argues that "scientists exaggerate global warming [and] ignore its positive aspects." As an example, Michaels claimed that "global warming is likely to increase winds, several kilometers aloft, that actually destroy hurricanes," a pleasant fantasy that has been blown apart by numerous studies, including this one from the National Center for Atmospheric Research." LOL, A well known green lefist environmental source. A "climate change scientists". There are a number of scientists AND historians who have said that some warming is good for us. If you study history.You will see why they believe it.

If you had any science that wasn't discredited, I might not be questioning where your material comes from. At the moment, I'm left questioning anything you post. If you are simply a mouthpiece for the oil and gas industry, I'd have my doubts on anything you had to say on the environment. Ah yes lets drag in the irrelevance on who funds whom.I could tell you about Hansens "corrupt" funding sources.Dr. Manns and so on.They are behaving like politicalized people in the game.I wonder why. It is what they say about the Climate is what should be discussed. Try that more often and maybe you have something valid to tell us.

Here is the editor of the page you promote: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...ick_J._Michaels "And an article in the journal Social Epistemology concluded "...the observations upon which PM [Patrick Michaels] draws his case are not good enough to bear the weight of the argument he wishes to make."" The people you keep leaning on to back your claims are not credible. A very misleading criticism they make of Micheals. Try reading his published papers and then come back and tell us all about it.

Without a single Coal plant in existence and other CO2 emitting sources. Humans still produce CO2 emissions. Our breaths.

"However, Christopher Landsea, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) National Hurricane Center in Florida, says the results are ambiguous. "We agree the potential is there for hurricanes to get worse due to man-made global warming, but the big issue is by how much," he said. " Seems that he agrees that global warming is happening. He's just not convinced about hurricanes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4751577.stm However there is one big problem. There is no proof of man made global warming, and why did they give the guy the boot. Sorry but there is proof of man made global warming.It is easy to see if you honestly look for it. Christ Landsea voluntarily left the IPCC.

It was 160 countries agreeing. You're free to think it is stupid. And that "agreement" blew in spontaneously? Yeah right. That is what he seems to say. Maybe all the evidence from links (even the U.N. does not agree with him) I provided was too much for him and he is now planning to put me on ignore in response. Oh dear!

You seem confused by what I meant in the first place. Rather than go over it again and again, I think I'd rather put you on ignore since you really can't seem to respond to anyone on this forum without the use of clickable faces and a lack of courtesy. Go right ahead and make my day! The smilies are part of this forum and what is more you can use them in reply. My continually correcting you ticked you off.That is why you are putting me on ignore.

Perhaps it is because you haven't made a point. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I was trying to CORRECT you post after post. Man you are way out of it!

It was 160 countries agreeing. You're free to think it is stupid. Who said this? You were replying to this from B.Max: I showed that the U.N. was involved.You seem to resist that.I even showed you U.N.'s own words about it. Remember this I had posted recently? The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases. The Kyoto Protocol now covers more than 160 countries globally and over 55% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At its heart, Kyoto establishes the following principles: Kyoto is underwritten by governments and is governed by global legislation enacted under the UN’s aegis emphasis mine What about that U.N. link I posted at post # 70?: Try doing research next time: From the U.N. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?News...global&Cr1=warm UN’s Kyoto treaty against global warming comes into force 16 February 2005 – The Kyoto treaty against global warming came into force today with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan urging the world to save the planet by adding to the limits on greenhouse gases and the UN environment chief stressing that many in the United States, the world’s top polluter, support the protocol despite the US Government’s opposition. Under the Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), industrialized countries are to reduce their combined emissions of six major greenhouse gases during the five-year period from 2008 to 2012 to below 1990 levels. So far 140 countries have ratified the accord. emphasis mine Maybe you need to slink away since your own words are making you seem confused.

And I say so what? A 747 jet flies over your head and you still miss it.

So what? You had said: Never have I disputed you on their being funded by their own Universities,Governments and Foundations. The IPCC they work with is being funded by the IPCC. Why are you having so much trouble understanding me anyway?

Exactly. 160 countries working together. This is what you said that I responded to: I repsonded by showing that it was done.... Yup it was under the direction of the U.N. that the many nations signed on to follow the stupid Kyoto Treaty. I gave you the information that contradicted you.

Their work is not funded by the IPCC. You need to read more. They are funded by their own universities, countries and foundations. Read my words slowly......

From Wikipedia on the Kyoto Treaty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol Description The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases. The Kyoto Protocol now covers more than 160 countries globally and over 55% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At its heart, Kyoto establishes the following principles: Kyoto is underwritten by governments and is governed by global legislation enacted under the UN’s aegis More in the link.

You act like the U.N. is some separate entity that does things on its own. Kyoto was was 160 countries making an agreement. Try doing research next time: From the U.N. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?News...global&Cr1=warm UN’s Kyoto treaty against global warming comes into force 16 February 2005 – The Kyoto treaty against global warming came into force today with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan urging the world to save the planet by adding to the limits on greenhouse gases and the UN environment chief stressing that many in the United States, the world’s top polluter, support the protocol despite the US Government’s opposition. Under the Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), industrialized countries are to reduce their combined emissions of six major greenhouse gases during the five-year period from 2008 to 2012 to below 1990 levels. So far 140 countries have ratified the accord. The European Union and Japan, for example, are to cut these emissions by 8 per cent and 6 per cent respectively. For many countries, achieving the Kyoto targets will be a major change that will require new policies and new approaches. “By itself, the Protocol will not save humanity from the dangers of climate change,” Mr. Annan said in a video message to a celebratory ceremony in the ancient Japanese capital of Kyoto, where it was negotiated in 1997. “So let us celebrate today, but let us not be complacent. “I call on the world community to be bold, to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol, and to act quickly in taking the next steps. There is no time to lose,” he added.

Which means many governments. You think that it is one entity where scientists are all employees of the U.N.? Never did say they are employed by the U.N. What did you drink today?

They act as a clearing house for scientific research. Universities, institutes and governments pay for the actual research. Or do you have evidence that the scientists are all paid by the U.N. Try again. I never once said they were getting paid by the U.N.. You are sliding around now.