Worst scientific scandal in the history…

[Yonivore]

That is according to UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6)

Correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't this more than reached the consensus on anthropogenic global warming, in the first place?


A hint of what the upcoming report contains:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…

:corn: :corn: :corn: :corn:

Damn, Kori; this popcorn is good.

[Wild Cobra]

Would this be the report:

U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7)

[The Reckoning]

you don't mess with the Weather Channel

[Yonivore]

you don't mess with the Weather Channel
Does anyone recall how many scientists made up the IPCC Consensus in the first place and, if some of those are now on board with this consensus, can we subtract them from that one?

What is the protocol?

[Wild Cobra]

Does anyone recall how many scientists made up the IPCC Consensus in the first place and, if some of those are now on board with this consensus, can we subtract them from that one?

What is the protocol?
I don't recall, but it was a pretty large number contributing to the reserarch, then maybe only a dozen selected the data to be used, and had a hand in the whole report. Saying all the scientists involved had consensus to begin with was a joke.

[2centsworth]

11 more scientist dissent.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

[Wild Cobra]

11 more scientist dissent.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

Great stuff. I followed several links. Thanx.

[Wild Cobra]

From the Minority Report (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9):


“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting
warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric
physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in
Pittsburgh.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can
speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that
man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely
upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface
system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to
receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190
studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t
have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on
scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist
Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported
International Year of the Planet.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future
warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi
University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace
member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a
fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”
- Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo.
Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar
interaction with the Earth.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based
on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for
example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of
Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact,
as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide
scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical
and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics
to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs,
who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American
Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of
Monthly Weather Review.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers
higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large
number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished
without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the
U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian
geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about
man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” -
Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at
Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of
Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American
Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the
National Academy of Sciences.
“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less
moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary
balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr.
Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was
once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet
is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee
the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who
has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in
Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself
solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate
changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in
man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC
committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation
between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports
and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have
distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip
Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed
publications.
“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give
some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” -
Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut,
served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present
alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major
businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” -
Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the
Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist
knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps
Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda
Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu
University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is
something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of
the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology
Department at the University of La Plata.
“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate
may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former
Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha,
Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.
“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by
human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly
inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored
more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.
“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government
control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the
Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack
Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological
Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.
“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The
global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the
millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” -
Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at
the University of Colorado.
“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone
man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data
refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G
LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.

[spurster]

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/12/15/inhofe-s-650-quot-dissenters-quot-make-that-649-648.aspx

Inhofe's 650 "Dissenters" (Make That 649... 648...)

The Senate's proudest global-warming skeptic, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, recently released a list of "MORE THAN 650 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTISTS" who "DISSENT OVER MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING CLAIMS." Exciting! Let's take a look.

First, a bit of background: In January, Inhofe posted his initial list of more than 400 "prominent scientists" who, he claimed, disputed that man-made greenhouse gases were responsible for rising global temperatures. Trouble is, when people started sifting through the names, they found that many experts on the list were actually weathermen, economists, and people with no real background in climate science. Worse still, when Andrew Dessler started contacting some of the actual climate scientists listed, many of them expressed first shock, then horror, and then e-mailed Inhofe's staff and demanded to be taken off, since they didn't disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all.

Well, fine, every list has its warts (and, in fairness, Inhofe's list still looks more reasonable than Rolling Stone's best-of-2008 album list), and we'll grant Inhofe a do-over. So here's the latest release. Many of the names are the same as before. But now, among other things, Inhofe's website cites a study allegedly proving that half of recent warming is due to the sun. Well, Joe Romm e-mailed the paper's author, Anja Eichler, who replied that she was "misinterpreted" on this point, and that her study actually shows something perfectly compatible with the IPCC consensus: Variations in solar activity have been correlated with temperature change in the past, but over the last 150 years, that hasn't been the case. "In this time," Eichler notes, "the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature." That's… pretty much what all the other recent scientific studies say. Not an auspicious start.

Update: Sen. Inhofe's communications director, Marc Morano, e-mails to say that Eichler wasn't included in the list of 650—they were merely reprinting on their website a post by another physicist, Lubos Motl, who cited Eichler's study as an example of "skeptical climatological literature" that showed the "participants of the Poznan conference are lunatics." Noted and corrected.

Second update: Here's a Belgian scientist who is on the list of 650 but doesn't appear to be a skeptic, either.

And a third: I see Inhofe's "Gang of 650" also includes Erich Roeckner, a renowned climate modeler at Germany's Max Planck Institute, who's quoted as saying there are still kinks in current climate models. But that's not controversial; all climatologists recognize that their models can't account for every last physical process. Inhofe's report then cites Roeckner telling Nature in 2006, "It is possible that all of them are wrong"—implying that he's casting doubt on the link between human activity and climate change. But he's not! Roeckner was referring to the IPCC's emissions scenarios, which involve assumptions about the rate of growth of greenhouse-gas emissions. (Scroll down here for the full quote.) We already know that emissions are growing faster than the IPCC's worst-case scenario, and that's bad news, not good.

Anwyay, Roeckner's as far as you get from a "dissenter": See this 2004 paper, which yet again establishes the link between greenhouse-gas emissions and temperature increases. Or see this link, where Roeckner is qutoed in multiple news stories sounding downright alarmist about the consequences of man-made warming. "Humans have had a large one-of-a-kind influence on the climate... Weather situations in which extreme floods occur will increase," he informed Deutsche Welle in 2004. "Our research pointed to rapid global warming and the shifting of climate zones," he told ABC News in 2005. Quite the heretic, that one.

--Bradford Plumer

Posted: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:17 PM

[spurster]

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/11/134543/71

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2169

[Wild Cobra]

spurster... Quoting article of little merit...

So, are you saying people are not allowed to make mistakes, or change their minds?

Does that somehow discredit the rest?

Why is that important to the debate?

[Wild Cobra]

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/11/134543/71

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2169

Spurster, will you please stop being a Kool-Aid drinking Lemming, repeating the propaganda of demoncraps?

No where did I find something to support this:


On what does Inhofe's office base the "Sea Levels Fail to Rise" claim?

Sea level increases are mentioned in the report countless time. The report lays out they are not rising at unusual rates, or alarmist rates. Not that they are not rising, or within normal historical amounts.

Please. If you don't understand someones work, please don't waste our time with it. What you linked is pure propaganda.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

somewhere al gore is frowning.

[SnakeBoy]

somewhere al gore is frowning.

http://www.ireporter.tv/Upload/180people.com/2007-05-18Gore.jpg

[MiamiHeat]

look, while you guys argue, there is irrefutable proof that the polar ice caps are melting at an amazing rate never before seen in recorded history.

[Rogue]

the biggest scandal goes for those who disguise the presense of aliens.

[spurster]

spurster... Quoting article of little merit...

So, are you saying people are not allowed to make mistakes, or change their minds?

Does that somehow discredit the rest?

Why is that important to the debate?

The 650 number is bogus. Yes, there are many climate scientists who greatly disagree with the man-made global warming hypothesis, but it is clear that a lot of this list is bogus.

[Extra Stout]

I always find the contrast between James Inhofe and Tom Coburn to be one of the more remarkable ones in the Senate. Both are from Oklahoma, and of the two, Coburn is the more conservative in terms of political philosophy (and his social views border on the extreme). The difference is that Inhofe uses his Senate seat to be a shameless corporate whore and inveterate liar against the public interest, while Coburn at least tries to act with integrity and concern for the public. Yet Inhofe was always the one who got the plum committee assignments, while Coburn spends a lot of time on the outs with GOP leadership.

Global warming skeptics probably should avoid using any argument coming from Inhofe's office, because he is acting in bad faith.

[TDMVPDPOY]

another fraud here is the emissions scheme...fkn im force to pay 10% more on my gas/water/electricity bills.....

[2centsworth]

I always find the contrast between James Inhofe and Tom Coburn to be one of the more remarkable ones in the Senate. Both are from Oklahoma, and of the two, Coburn is the more conservative in terms of political philosophy (and his social views border on the extreme). The difference is that Inhofe uses his Senate seat to be a shameless corporate whore and inveterate liar against the public interest, while Coburn at least tries to act with integrity and concern for the public. Yet Inhofe was always the one who got the plum committee assignments, while Coburn spends a lot of time on the outs with GOP leadership.

Global warming skeptics probably should avoid using any argument coming from Inhofe's office, because he is acting in bad faith.

maybe he is acting in bad faith, I don't know, but he is producing some very compelling material like " Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.

and

"MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific, linked warming and cooling cycles to the “orbit and the tilt and wobble of the axis of the Earth's spin.” Rose also questioned climate model predictions on July 8, 2008, by stating, “Clearly, these are not ‘facts.’ "



there is a whole bunch more.

[Rockhound]

somewhere al gore is frowning.

I doubt it. The UK just agreed to $200 million worth of Al Gore's environmental stock plan.

He's laughing his ass off all the way to the bank.

[Rockhound]

look, while you guys argue, there is irrefutable proof that the polar ice caps are melting at an amazing rate never before seen in recorded history.


orly?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

[ClingingMars]

somewhere al gore is frowning.

ZXrc1XZayp4

-Mars

[FromWayDowntown]

Frankly, I don't care much about the debate. At worst, there is a significant and meaningful debate about whether anthropogenic global warming has occurred or is occurring. Regardless of the ultimate conclusion -- one that I feel certain will not be reached during my lifetime -- it seems wise, to me, to engage in practices that tend to offer less deleterious results for the air, water, and other portions of the environment. I don't know how any of us are truly harmed by acting responsibly in terms of our waste and emissions and at least trying to protect what may or may not be threatened.

That strikes me as true no matter which side ultimately "wins" the debate.

[DarkReign]

which side ultimately "wins" the debate.

'Tis all that matters. You know this.

[101A]

Frankly, I don't care much about the debate. At worst, there is a significant and meaningful debate about whether anthropogenic global warming has occurred or is occurring. Regardless of the ultimate conclusion -- one that I feel certain will not be reached during my lifetime -- it seems wise, to me, to engage in practices that tend to offer less deleterious results for the air, water, and other portions of the environment. I don't know how any of us are truly harmed by acting responsibly in terms of our waste and emissions and at least trying to protect what may or may not be threatened.

That strikes me as true no matter which side ultimately "wins" the debate.

I agree, however extremes on both sides must be avoided.

First, CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and if AGW is NOT occurring, should not be classified as such - toooooo much would fall under the control of the EPA.

[Winehole23]

'Tis all that matters. You know this.'Til everyone's proven wrong.

The possibility that everyone is wrong cannot be definitively be ruled out.



Then we can start all over again.

Fragment of an agon.

[FromWayDowntown]

I agree, however extremes on both sides must be avoided.

By no means am I proposing that either extreme should prevail.

In fact, what I'm saying is simply that if there are things that I can do in my every day life that might be less harmful to the environment than other practices might be, it strikes me as extremely pragmatic to engage in the less harmful practice, even if it means I lose a miniscule amount of convenience. I'd certainly urge others to do the same.

Like I say, I don't give a damn which side is objectively correct; I don't actually think anyone will truly know the answer to that question for some time.

[101A]

By no means am I proposing that either extreme should prevail.

In fact, what I'm saying is simply that if there are things that I can do in my every day life that might be less harmful to the environment than other practices might be, it strikes me as extremely pragmatic to engage in the less harmful practice, even if it means I lose a miniscule amount of convenience. I'd certainly urge others to do the same.

Like I say, I don't give a damn which side is objectively correct; I don't actually think anyone will truly know the answer to that question for some time.

Props.
Conservation is a good thing. (from a resident right wing nut job who hasn't bought anything but CFL bulbs for 5+ years and (literally), with 5 in the family, living in Pennsylvania, NEVER runs the clothes dryer (not gonna pay for 220 when the air will do the work for free).

[DarkReign]

Props.
Conservation is a good thing. (from a resident right wing nut job who hasn't bought anything but CFL bulbs for 5+ years and (literally), with 5 in the family, living in Pennsylvania, NEVER runs the clothes dryer (not gonna pay for 220 when the air will do the work for free).

Cheap ass, GOP wingnut, freakin' weirdo that you are.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

(not gonna pay for 220 when the air will do the work for free.
right on. i don't wear all my clothes at once so they all don't need to be dried that quickly at once. call me mexican, but i leave more money in my pocket.

[xrayzebra]

look, while you guys argue, there is irrefutable proof that the polar ice caps are melting at an amazing rate never before seen in recorded history.

"For all those worried that the North Pole might melt, consider this: There's been a rapid rebound in the level of global sea ice. Fits in with the recent evidence that if anything these days, the Earth has been cooling."

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/3197 (Melting)

[FromWayDowntown]

"For all those worried that the North Pole might melt, consider this: There's been a rapid rebound in the level of global sea ice. Fits in with the recent evidence that if anything these days, the Earth has been cooling."

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/3197 (Melting)

Well, then screw my concerns about the environment!!! I'm going out to buy a great big SUV that gets about 1 mpg and I'm gonna burn coal in my backyard, just for the hell of it!!!!

[Wild Cobra]

look, while you guys argue, there is irrefutable proof that the polar ice caps are melting at an amazing rate never before seen in recorded history.
Really?

I thought the Global Sea Ice was near average? For three years between mid 2004 to mid 2007, it was below average. Maybe you should keep in touch with the real news rather than propaganda.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

The 650 number is bogus. Yes, there are many climate scientists who greatly disagree with the man-made global warming hypothesis, but it is clear that a lot of this list is bogus.

People tried to say that long ago as the list that grew to 31,000+ was started. Turned out that people would sign up falsely. By the time the allegations were named, the fake names had already been removed and in the process of being removed.

The left tries to be slick, but were caught on this one. Signing up with bogus names to find names to discount...

Please. How many of the 650 are bogus? My understanding is it's under 1%.

Please. By all means. Give us the bogus names.

[Winehole23]

.The left tries to be slick, but were caught on this one. Signing up with bogus names to find names to discount...Agents provocateurs!

Monsieur Satan! :lol