sunsettommy

George will is not much of a spinmeister.You must be getting desperate when you bring up a weak strawman.Your childish attack of American voters is noted.A common liberal attitude. I noticed that you were silent on the below quote.It is just a small sampling of revelations and expose's that has happened during the last year.

Do you actually read history? Then the usual misuse of the phrase climate change as if this is a recent phenomenon that once did not exist.Do you realize that climate is NEVER static? I suggest that you reconsider your statement in light of past history.

Who are these spinmeisters? The public over the summer are getting it more and more now.They are losing interest after being LIED to so many times.It is really easy to point them out. Then if YOU have been paying attention.There has been expose's of poor statistical analysis (James Hansen) and that many temperature reporting stations do not even come close to meeting minimum standards ( Anthony Watts ).

Maybe he did not deserve it EITHER.But he was closer to fulfilling the stated desires of Alfred Nobel when he set up in his will a PEACE prize and the declaration that the recipient of the prize are those who promoted peace. Al Gore never promoted Peace.He is a self promoter of a designed scaremongering outfit that nets him MILLIONS.A proven liar and a consistent hypocrite to boot. The use of his whopping doomsday pronouncements seems to pass so easily.A sign of a world of suckers ready to be swooned while the evidence has been coming in for months that there has been NO warming trend since 1998.

I very recently showed YOU in another thread.That there has been NO warming trend since 1998. I even posted the OFFICIAL temperature data of various research centeres and the links to them.You come up with a link to Wikipedia.The chart at Wikipedia shows the point that since 1998 there has been NO warming trend.It has flattened out. Shame on you.I even posted a link that had ALL the major groups such as Hadley centre,RSS,MSU,and more in ONE link where you can compare their data.Shame on you. This despite the continued stepped CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

Um it was navigable 100 years ago.Sailboats did it. The region is warming in regional areas.But still cold enough to form sea ice and maintain large areas of it during the brief summer. The main cause of the melting is the "Norwegion current" has sped up and changes in the winds in the polar regions.Most of the observed changes are on the ASIAN side of the North Pole. The Artic sea ice level is about to reach its minimum levels that should soon see a reverse to expansion in the next few years. Meanwhile the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE has not shown any warming trend since 1979.Therefore it is NOT Global. Then we have reports of a FOURTY + years cooling trend in most of Antarctica.

No it will only prove that Africans are OUR ancestors. Racism is plain dumb since we are all humans.

I judged him for merely being President of Iran. He is a dirtbag.

All I know is that Iamajihadist is a flaming liar about having no homosexuals in Iran. Surely 13 people fall for it but other than that he is peachy! Most of the people in Iran actually like President Bush more than they like Iamajihadist.

Bleah,bleah...............

You are not the one I was talking about. LOL

I see that a certain somebody has left this thread.Too bad he never was much into honest discussion. I had hoped to have a rational rebuttal posted against the Monkton paper.All I got was the usual gibberish about peer review stuff and supicious funding.That he is not a scientist and LA LA LA......... I thought the Viscount wrote a credible paper.I have posted the posted article in 3 other forums and not a rational rebuttal has ever come across.Just the usual personal attack against the Viscount. Not once was anyone being decieved about the paper Monkton posted.He never said it was a peer reviewed paper or that he is a climate scientist.He wrote it with references to actual published science papers.Somehow that was not good enough for certain people in this thread.To post a rebuttal against it rather than the stupid bromide that it is not a peer reviewed paper and getting oil money. It was simply too novel an idea of just choosing to either post a rebuttal or shut up! Not once did this certain person bother to deal with the posted article's content or elaborate on the "suspicion" claim against an oil company.I asked several times for something more than "suspicion" allegation about oil backed funding in the reply.I got nothing but drivel in return.I even gave him a hint in looking up the Union of Concerned Scientists about it.He never bothered. I see this so often in forums now that I consider such people having attention deficit disorder.

I see that you were here and replied to Severian. I did post a reply to you. It is post # 55. I hope you start providing something more substantive beyond "suspicion".If not I will ignore anymore blather from you on it. Meanwhile you still failed to make a comment on the content of the first post.The one that is about the Viscount paper. The topic of this thread you never have been on. He he.......

Stevoh: Suspicious is all you have said since you present no evidence.Worthless I would say since it means you have irrational thoughts concerning Exxon.It is indicative of being closeminded. LOLOLOLOL!!! When will your anti Exxon mania ever die down? It is called paranoia. It is clear you have failed to beck up your claim against Exxon having undue influence.Illegal influence and so on.You have said NOTHING more beyond this "suspicion" allegation. NOTHING! Really you must be convinced they put oil in your toothpaste! Just to let you know.Exxon did not send me any money.No oil company has sent me money.Nobody in the ENTIRE world has sent me money to be skeptical. I have been in this climate stuff since the late 1970's.I am well aware of the science process.You have not said anything new here.You also have not said anything about the CONTENT of the posted article itself either. Can you actually tell use what is wrong with the viscount paper? I as a layman undertstood it. AndrewL never could.Maybe you will? He he.... Global warming is already proven in part to be a result of human activity.I have known for years that Mankind through various means have affected the climate of the world. Most of the so called skeptics (sometimes called "deniers") accept the evidence.It shows that we have added additional CO2 beyond what Nature emits.About 2.5% of the total yearly emission is from us.Nature emits the other 97.5%. It is obvious that you have no idea what skeptics know about the state of the climate science research. You are a funny guy. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You are so far behind in this. Climate Science research long ago showed that we have a small climatic influence through land use changes,Chemical emissions,CO2 emissions,Ozone emissions and so on. Skeptics already accepted it long ago.It is you who is comically unimformed about what most skeptics believe. It is already well known that CO2 has a small warm forcing that diminishes with additional CO2 molecules being emitted.It is on a Logarithmic scale. It is people like YOU who keeps fighting the science.The many published science papers does not support the stupidly unsupported idea that CO2 is the dominant warm forcing and that we are main the cause of it. The IPCC themselves admit they know very little about most of the listed suspected warm forcings.They even showed us the "what we know" chart in their 2001 report.It is obvious you never saw it. YOU never addressed the posted article because YOU have no idea what he is talking about.Neither does AndrewL whom I gave ground mistakenly when I realized that his argument was actually no good.The report was already updated when the Viscount made his report on it. I missed it at first untill I saw the dates.

I have seen A Muslim women wearing Burka in my city in America.She was alone and shopping. She appeared to be free.

Suspicious is all you can come up with? LOL Last time I checked.It is legal to fund a group doing something lawful. This suspicion game was invented by environmentalists because their end game are being exposed for their absurd alarmism.The AGW hypothesis is failing as more and more science papers are being published. Exxon has so little influence due to their tiny funding of a few organizations.It is silly to be suspicious. Have you read the stupid Union of Concerned Scientists claims against Exxon? This funding angle is stupid anyway.Since it is the CONTENT of the arguments that is what counts.

Not really. All it did was take out the propaganda sails of James Hansen data manipulation program.The errors are far more pervasive than has been publicized in the media.Climate Audit has since then shown that James Hansen has long been playing loose with the data. He is no longer a trusted man.

The Russians never lived up to those treaties. That is a reality you need to remember.

This crap is right out of the Realclimate scrapbook. America has about 20% or more ACTIVE weather reporting stations of the world.

This crap is right out of the Realclimate scrapbook. America has about 20% or more ACTIVE weather reporting stations of the world.

LOLOLOL!!! Now YOU are moving the goalpost.An excellent example why you did that is because I STATED at post # 13: You said no at these postings without any qualifiers: Post # 18 Post # 24 Post # 31 Now that you know I proved my case by showing YOU several sources that clearly show a drop since 1998.They show it statistically.You suddenly add qualifiers of Volcanoes and El-ninyos.They are obviously in the record as you yourself stated: Now you say we have to "filter out" anomalies el-ninyos. This is B.S. Now in this post #36 you quoted me: Your reply is a classic misdirection attempt.Because YOU know in the back of your head that I was talking about the time period from 1998 onward. You suddenly add qualifiers: my emphasisThe problem for you is this.IT IS ALREADY PART OF THE TEMPERATURE DATA! Do not try this dishonesty crap again.It is stupid. Now you stated this: my emphasisThat chart is from the HADLEY CENTER.The official data source for the IPCC. You go argue with them. Here is what YOU keep ignoring.I will show it to you in BLUE. UAH MSU: Peak recorded anomaly: April, 1998: +0.78 °C Current relative to peak recorded: -0.52 °C RSS MSU: Peak recorded anomaly: April, 1998: +0.90 °C Current relative to peak recorded: -0.677 °C Hadley CRUT3: Peak recorded anomaly: February, 1998: +0.75 °C Current relative to peak recorded: -0.34 °C How can anyone ingore the blue part since they show a slight cooling pattern overall since 1998? It is obvious that you are willing to decieve yourself by ignoring the data I highlighted in blue. Your dishonesty is apalling.

I posted a link at post # 26 that shows the running mean. It is from the Hadley Center. Why did you avoid it totally? No upward line since 1998.

You did not pay attention to the trend I asked you to observe: I guess I have to SHOW you. UAH MSU: Peak recorded anomaly: April, 1998: +0.78 °C Current relative to peak recorded: -0.52 °C or RSS MSU: Peak recorded anomaly: April, 1998: +0.90 °C Current relative to peak recorded: -0.677 °C or Hadley CRUT3: Peak recorded anomaly: February, 1998: +0.75 °C Current relative to peak recorded: -0.34 °C The charts reflect it.It is a RUNNING MEAN! Why you ignore the evidence right in front of you?

Global Warming at a glance: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm Take a note of the temperature trend since 1998 data.

Try this PDF: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Spinning%20te...f%20control.pdf