http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/11/milli-vanilli-of-science-hacked-emails.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/sorting-fact-from-fiction-in-a-climate-of-confusion/story-e6frg6zo-1225801828810

Which has happened within recorded human history already; it’s called the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age.

And by the way, what else was in those emails? Oh yes, the “scientists” talking about how they needed to ignore and eliminate the MWP because it didn’t fit their data.

So Tano, what do leftist “scientists” like yourself call faking and eliminating data that doesn’t fit your predetermined conclusions? Because as we understand it, it certainly isn’t science.

TGC:
Perhaps we should get a bunch of those “green” butt-plugs and use them on the cows so they won’t fart anymore, eh?

“Green” butt-plugs?

Now I’ve heard everything. LOL.

How does one acquire a ‘green’ butt-plug, pray tell?

As in … ‘gang’-green?

Ewww …

just like the ’scientists’ Tano and william have made up their minds and don’t want to be confused by the facts.

The cycle will keep going – warm – cold – warm – cold

excerpt the section of an article that seems to support your case, and ignore the part that doesn’t, and hope nobody bothers to follow the link. It’s shoddy hackery and we all know it.

Which is EXACTLY what you did in 18. And you left out this gem:

Climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf is so convinced that his predictions will be correct in the end that he is willing to back up his conviction with a €2,500 ($3,700) bet. “I will win,” says Rahmstorf.

His adversary Latif turned down the bet, saying that the matter was too serious for gambling. “We are scientists, not poker players.”

Nice.

As for the other responses, I can’t quite understand you with all the spittle flying out of your mouth. And I’m not really fluent in “raving idiot,” anyway, so it’s probably not going to work out between us, the whole communication thing. Sorry.

Well, Bill, it is what it is. You can try to make bullshit look appealing, but it’s still bullshit. You can try with all your might to convince yourself that you aren’t shoveling it and that you’re the smartest person here, but you’re still shoveling bullshit.

The ray of light is that more and more people are seeing you and yours as a mad pack of monkeys flinging shit everywhere.

It is what it is and I’m all too happy to tell you instead of coming up with some arrogant, hifalutin way of telling you that it ain’t.

You keep holding to your climate models and bogus data.

The rest of us will stick with reality.

You’re obviously defensive, having been called out on one of the cheapest, most sophomoric tricks of the (right-wing) blogging trade: excerpt the section of an article that seems to support your case, and ignore the part that doesn’t, and hope nobody bothers to follow the link. It’s shoddy hackery and we all know it. Most decent political bloggers (those with an actual commitment to enhancing the understanding of their readers) have grown up from that little gimmick. But then again, you clearly don’t have very high ethical standards when it comes to either journalism or the truth. You throw your little bits of red meat and they eat it up: got to keep them well-fed, got to keep them angry.

Yes, I can wrap my head around the fact that you’re a climate-change denier. There are plenty of you anti-science “it’s called weather” morons out there. But when you seek to support that claim by linking to an article that in fact says quite the opposite…

“Climatologists… predict that the average global temperature will increase by about three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, unless humanity manages to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions…” and “The Hadley Center group expects warming to resume in the coming years… (with) natural cyclical warming…augmented by the warming effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.”

…you’re just plain dishonest. And you’ve said all you need to say about yourself.

As for the other responses, I can’t quite understand you with all the spittle flying out of your mouth. And I’m not really fluent in “raving idiot,” anyway, so it’s probably not going to work out between us, the whole communication thing. Sorry.

Wow Bruce, thats a really weak response.

First off, there is a huge difference between climate and weather. Climate refers to the general heat balance of the planet and how it is distributed, and thus the empirical focus is on average regional temperatures and precipitation over extended periods of time. Weather, of course, refers to the localized expression of the overall climate – whether it rains or shines in a particular place. If the climate of the Earth were completely stable, you would still have a normal amount of weather events – water would still evaporate, the wind would still blow, rain would still fall, and when watching this weather it would appear very dynamic.

Secondly, believe it or not, but those who study climate are aware of the fact that it always changes. All of their models are built on the accumulation of historical data of changes and rates of change. In fact, the reason that you know that it always changes is because they told you so. (they being the climate science community)

The issue with anthropogenic global warming is the RATE at which warming is occuring. The earth used to be a lot warmer than it is now, or than it will be in 100 years. But it took thousands of years (often times millions) to cycle through these hot periods and cold period. Now we are talking of significant change over decades. That means that it will be impossible for many species to have the time to adapt, and most pertinent to us, will not allow sufficent time for our infrastructure to adapt – ie our coastal cities, our agricultural regions etc.

And though climate change is a constant in earth’s history, such that it is impossible to image that it wouldnt be occuring (though at a very slow rate), I doubt that ecosystems would die out if the climate were stable. How do you figure that?

It is called “WEATHER”. And the climate has been changing for billions of years.

The problem with Gore & his worshippers is their complete and blind arrogance.

You did see where the climate snakeoil salesmen have been manipulating (that’s called LYING) the data to fit their story, right?

No? Then go up and see comment #3.