APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"

That's enough internationalist nationalism for today Asshate. Take your oxymorons elsewhere...

Today's predominant brand of fascism is internationalist.

Fascism is characterized by a melding of corporate and government power.

When that government is global, and the corporations are multinational, it's internationalist fascism.
 
LOL the dude linked the same dumb article. Obviously, statistics is not within your grasp, I see.

What's "dumb" about the article, chuckles? What information contained in that article can you logically prove wrong or inconclusive. See chuckles, that article is what you and your CO2 loving corporate dupes just keep ignoring...because to acknowledge it would make your myopic arguments irrelevent. But then again, the WHOLE TRUTH has never been of interest to you.

I don't know how to explain True enough...you just parrot what others tell you without applying the cognitive reasoning skills that God gave you...the term "willful ignorance" decribes you to the letter. it better but it's something like this:

Scientist chooses proxy data that skews the sample in favor of CO2 theory predicted results.

SOME scientist....not ALL scientist envolved in the global warming debate. Your problem is that whenever one global warminng group or person is proven wrong, you jump on it like a flea to a dog's ass and claim that is the ENTIRE premise of people warning about global warming. But, as in the article I showed you, that is not the case. And mind you, that is just ONE example. I could spend a day and a night referencing other bonafide sources from the scientific community that give various aspects as to the proof of global warming with relations to industrialization and urbanization. And let us not forget that many bogus and fraudulent claims by "reputable" scientist (paid by various corporations) to debunk global warming. For you to act as if fraud is one sided is naive at best

Scientist claims the study supports CO2 theory.
Scientist witholds data for decade(FRAUD) while others attempt to replicate his work(SCIENCE)

See above paragraph

When the data is finally obtained (through freedom of information act) the data used in the sample is found to be cherry picked.

See above paragraph

The whole IPCC hockey stick rode on theis study.. that used 12 fucking trees

But the warmers "trust peer reviewed" studies

See above paragraph

LOLZ

Laugh, clown, laugh. Neither you, the great Lord Monckton, or any other self described expert can refute my statements or the links I provided.
 
Freakin' unbelievable. "Obama's a Muslim, Obama's a natural-born Kenyan, Obama-Osama, Obama and his wife exchanged terrorist fist jabs, Obama's a socialist/communist/anti-American", ad nauseum.

The internet is crawling with misstatements, inaccuracies and lies regarding Obama, and Faux is one of the biggest offenders. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. I'd like to see these hacks pick out a few controversies from the sites below, and explain why they aren't biased against Obama.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/07/03/is_fox_nation_in_bed_with_newsbusters.php

Thing is, my exchange with the Asshat had NOTHING to do with Obama and Fox...it was about global warming and the reality of my statements that Lord Monckton couldn't adequately answer. Essentially, Damo decided to try and change the subject....why, I don't know.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Don't bet the farm on it, Damo. So far you're all talk and no substance. Your making accusations while ignoring previous information and posts, and then you build on that faulty premise as if it's gospel. Only in your mind, Damo. Stop BS'ing and get your ass in gear, because if I want to sink to the level you're creating, I'll take Freedumb off of IA.


And I was right. About what? As I've stated above, you've proven nothing logically, you just keep telling everyone that you're right. Got news for you, Damo...that "logic" gets kicked to the curb by grade school teachers every day. Too bad nobody took me up on the bet. Based on your opinion and not facts? That's a sucker's bet...no wonder no one will touch it. I'll give you another try. Translation: SOS Please post the definition of "neocon" that you are using so that we can see how pointing out your hypocrisy can be defined as such. I'd be willing to bet again, if anybody would take the offer, that you won't be able to do it and won't even try, just like in this post.


Okay, let's follow the bouncing ball: I'm discussing global warming issues with Asshat. He cannot disprove the information in the links I provided or contradict how I display the flaws in Lord Monckton's statements.

Then you appear on the scene and call me a hypocrit. You don't explain what I am being hypocritical about. For good measure, you throw in Obama, who had nothing to do with the discussion. I ask for clarification as to my crime of hypocrisy....you gave none. I provide fact based evidence that the Obama White House claim of Fox bias is true....you ignore that and repeat your claim. So when I rightly point out that you're just acting like a neocon parrot....changing the subject and repeating accusations while ignoring information provided, you now change the subject yet again to make it about you not acting like a neocon...despite my pointing out that you are mimicking the exact debate "tactics" of such luminaries as USfreedumb (or LoyalEnd, or Tutu Blabba, etc., etc.).

So when all is said and done, the recorded posts show that you are not really interested in a logical discussion on any subject with me here...but are instead intent upon slander....using convoluted logic in your attack. Why, I don't know....but clearly you've got a range of topics that you just can't stand having your personal beliefs challenged on. Tough donuts bunky....you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or you could ban me from the site and make all the accusations you want.....which would cement your status as "fair and balanced", like Fox News.

Carry on. :cof1:
 
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039186.shtml

An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability
An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability

Marco Tedesco

Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, City College of New York, New York, New York, USA

Andrew J. Monaghan

National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season. The 30-year record confirms that significant negative correlations exist at regional and continental scales between austral summer melting and both the ENSO and SAM indices for October–January. In particular, the strongest negative melting anomalies (such as those in 2008 and 2009) are related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing when both the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases. Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends.

Received 13 May 2009; accepted 12 August 2009; published 24 September 2009.

Citation: Tedesco, M., and A. J. Monaghan (2009), An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa-climate14-2009oct14,0,4010488.story

Bush-era EPA document on climate change released
The 2007 draft suppressed until now calls for regulation of greenhouse gases, citing global warming as a serious risk to the U.S. A finding by the Obama administration is nearly identical.
 
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039186.shtml

An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability
An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability

Marco Tedesco

Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, City College of New York, New York, New York, USA

Andrew J. Monaghan

National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season. The 30-year record confirms that significant negative correlations exist at regional and continental scales between austral summer melting and both the ENSO and SAM indices for October–January. In particular, the strongest negative melting anomalies (such as those in 2008 and 2009) are related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing when both the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases. Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends.

Received 13 May 2009; accepted 12 August 2009; published 24 September 2009.

Citation: Tedesco, M., and A. J. Monaghan (2009), An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa-climate14-2009oct14,0,4010488.story

Bush-era EPA document on climate change released
The 2007 draft suppressed until now calls for regulation of greenhouse gases, citing global warming as a serious risk to the U.S. A finding by the Obama administration is nearly identical.

And then there's this:

http://cdn.optmd.com/V2/62428/16622...0/16/deafening_silence_on_real_climate_change
 
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa-climate14-2009oct14,0,4010488.story

Bush-era EPA document on climate change released
The 2007 draft suppressed until now calls for regulation of greenhouse gases, citing global warming as a serious risk to the U.S. A finding by the Obama administration is nearly identical.

And then there's this:

http://cdn.optmd.com/V2/62428/16622...0/16/deafening_silence_on_real_climate_change

I really see little point in arguing the toss with people whose minds are so totally closed.
In the end there are more people in your country and certainly many more in civilised parts of the world who are concerned about the various aspects of climate change than those who are not.
If the concerned people take such action as they can and aim their debates and arguments at those who genuinely do not know and who are willing to listen we are much more likely to have improvements to show our children and grandchildren.
I suggest that we all do what we can and leave the thickos to their own devices. They may come to thank us in the end. And if they dont, who gives a toss?
 
I really see little point in arguing the toss with people whose minds are so totally closed.
In the end there are more people in your country and certainly many more in civilised parts of the world who are concerned about the various aspects of climate change than those who are not.
If the concerned people take such action as they can and aim their debates and arguments at those who genuinely do not know and who are willing to listen we are much more likely to have improvements to show our children and grandchildren.
I suggest that we all do what we can and leave the thickos to their own devices. They may come to thank us in the end. And if they dont, who gives a toss?


Now it's "CLIMATE CHANGE"!!

What happened to "GLOBAL WARMING"??
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
About what? As I've stated above, you've proven nothing logically, you just keep telling everyone that you're right. Got news for you, Damo...that "logic" gets kicked to the curb by grade school teachers every day.
Okay, let's follow the bouncing ball: I'm discussing global warming issues with Asshat. He cannot disprove the information in the links I provided or contradict how I display the flaws in Lord Monckton's statements.

Then you appear on the scene and call me a hypocrit. You don't explain what I am being hypocritical about. For good measure, you throw in Obama, who had nothing to do with the discussion. I ask for clarification as to my crime of hypocrisy....you gave none. I provide fact based evidence that the Obama White House claim of Fox bias is true....you ignore that and repeat your claim. So when I rightly point out that you're just acting like a neocon parrot....changing the subject and repeating accusations while ignoring information provided, you now change the subject yet again to make it about you not acting like a neocon...despite my pointing out that you are mimicking the exact debate "tactics" of such luminaries as USfreedumb (or LoyalEnd, or Tutu Blabba, etc., etc.).

So when all is said and done, the recorded posts show that you are not really interested in a logical discussion on any subject with me here...but are instead intent upon slander....using convoluted logic in your attack. Why, I don't know....but clearly you've got a range of topics that you just can't stand having your personal beliefs challenged on. Tough donuts bunky....you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or you could ban me from the site and make all the accusations you want.....which would cement your status as "fair and balanced", like Fox News.

Carry on. :cof1:

About what?

Jeebus...

1. It all starts with the RL statement from the Obama Administration, "Fox News isn't real news."

2. Couple days later in a thread with Taichi someone says half-mockingly, "MSNBC isn't real news."

3. Taichi tries to defend MSNBC by making a "translation" of that statement.

4. Damocles sees this and points out that if the MSNBC statement should be translated this way, wouldn't you agree the Obama Admin's statements should be translated the same or are you a hypocrite?

5. Taichi says, "You're a neocon!" to Damocles.

6. Damocles says, "How would that make me a neocon, it doesn't fit any definition of neocon I've ever seen? And it also appears as if you selected the 'hypocrite' choice of those two."

7. Taichi says, "You're a neocon!"

8. Repeat as necessary.

I asked you in what way, even if you were "right", that I would be a "neocon" therefore. What do you mean I didn't "explain"... I quoted the post with your defense of MSNBC using the same statements (almost exactly) as conservatives do when talking about Obama's war on FOX News...

So far all you've done is take the long winded approach of what you attempt to hypocritically accuse me of here, just saying you are "right" with no capacity to back it up. You are unable to find one iota of information that shows only neocons disagree with the hypocrite Taichi, and you won't be able to.

Plus, nobody is going to ban you. You aren't a victim. Quit being deliberately ignorant and begin to do what you so constantly say you want others to do actually make arguments from facts rather than begin a dialogue with "You are a neocon"

You constantly make me embarrassed for you. I don't like feeling empathy towards stupid.
 
Now it's "CLIMATE CHANGE"!!

What happened to "GLOBAL WARMING"??

As you are well aware, oh boy of little brain, I am instructed by my masters to say such things with the threat of having my finger nails extracted and being condemned to listen to arseholes like you for eternity.
Can you make a well known phrase or saying from the words : OFF FUCK
 
I swear, you are just plain ignorant. Does the Yamal cherry picking of 12 trees to base the global record on give you any concern? Science? LOL

12 trees were used to build the hockey stick graph.
It's a joke
 
I swear, you are just plain ignorant. Does the Yamal cherry picking of 12 trees to base the global record on give you any concern? Science? LOL

12 trees were used to build the hockey stick graph.
It's a joke
They are willing to fully ignore bad science in the effort to agree with human created global climate change.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,4010488.story

Bush-era EPA document on climate change released
The 2007 draft suppressed until now calls for regulation of greenhouse gases, citing global warming as a serious risk to the U.S. A finding by the Obama administration is nearly identical.

And then there's this:

http://cdn.optmd.com/V2/62428/166226...climate_change

I really see little point in arguing the toss with people whose minds are so totally closed.
In the end there are more people in your country and certainly many more in civilised parts of the world who are concerned about the various aspects of climate change than those who are not.
If the concerned people take such action as they can and aim their debates and arguments at those who genuinely do not know and who are willing to listen we are much more likely to have improvements to show our children and grandchildren.
I suggest that we all do what we can and leave the thickos to their own devices. They may come to thank us in the end. And if they dont, who gives a toss?

Well, the catch is that once you pull the rug out from under the willfully ignorant and those of stubborn pride, then it all comes down to sheer personal choice....>I'm going to keep doing what I do because I like it, not because it makes sense.<

What we are seeing is the beginnings of a true challenge to the powers that be....and many are afraid to step up to the plate. So those in charge of power distribution, health distribution, etc., tell their lies and half truths and pass out the talking points, because the under lying threat is "you better do as we say, or we'll take our toys and go home". Unfortunately for them, that old stand by isn't holding as firm as it use to....because as history shows when you push people to a point where they have nothing to lose, change will happen.
The reason why I engage most closed minded people on this subject is to get them to a point where they demonstrate it's not about logic from their point of view, but about being comfortable with the status quo, and suppressing those who they're ideologically opposed to. Once that level of honesty is reached, then we can all move on (or most of us can, anyway).
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
About what? As I've stated above, you've proven nothing logically, you just keep telling everyone that you're right. Got news for you, Damo...that "logic" gets kicked to the curb by grade school teachers every day.
Okay, let's follow the bouncing ball: I'm discussing global warming issues with Asshat. He cannot disprove the information in the links I provided or contradict how I display the flaws in Lord Monckton's statements.

Then you appear on the scene and call me a hypocrit. You don't explain what I am being hypocritical about. For good measure, you throw in Obama, who had nothing to do with the discussion. I ask for clarification as to my crime of hypocrisy....you gave none. I provide fact based evidence that the Obama White House claim of Fox bias is true....you ignore that and repeat your claim. So when I rightly point out that you're just acting like a neocon parrot....changing the subject and repeating accusations while ignoring information provided, you now change the subject yet again to make it about you not acting like a neocon...despite my pointing out that you are mimicking the exact debate "tactics" of such luminaries as USfreedumb (or LoyalEnd, or Tutu Blabba, etc., etc.).

So when all is said and done, the recorded posts show that you are not really interested in a logical discussion on any subject with me here...but are instead intent upon slander....using convoluted logic in your attack. Why, I don't know....but clearly you've got a range of topics that you just can't stand having your personal beliefs challenged on. Tough donuts bunky....you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or you could ban me from the site and make all the accusations you want.....which would cement your status as "fair and balanced", like Fox News.

Carry on.


About what? Go back and read EVERYTHING...and stop pretending you don't comprehend what you read.

Jeebus... Yeah, your deterioration to these lame ass tactics does elicit expressions in frustration.

1. It all starts with the RL statement from the Obama Administration, "Fox News isn't real news." Which had NOTHING to do with the discussion I was having with Asshat and Tinfoil. This was another topic YOU injected, possibly to detract from the fact that the aforementioned clowns couldn't factually refute what I posted and linked. Only YOU can explain your actions, but the chronology of the posts prove me out on this.

2. Couple days later in a thread with Taichi someone says half-mockingly, "MSNBC isn't real news." And obviously you weren't paying attention to the what had transpired. I used a link to MSNBC that covered a story regarding DEFORESTATION AND GLOBAL WARMING.

3. Taichi tries to defend MSNBC by making a "translation" of that statement. And had you comprehended the response, you would have noted that I pointed out how Asshat (or was it Tinfoil? Their mindsets are so alike.) does the classic Rove inspired neocon response...when he can't disprove the content, he just demonizes the source and avoids the content. The subject was global warming, the material reported on was valid.

4. Damocles sees this and points out that if the MSNBC statement should be translated this way, wouldn't you agree the Obama Admin's statements should be translated the same or are you a hypocrite?

Actually, you just called me a hypocrit with little to no explanation. I asked you TWICE to explain...and until now you didn't. Again, MSNBC was REPORTING on a news story about global warming....NOT about the political machinations of Obama. What you've done is jump on the Asshat dodge wagon...which is your perrogative, but is still a BS dodge none the less.

5. Taichi says, "You're a neocon!" to Damocles. No, I pointed out that you were utilizing the tactics of the neocon clowns (see above). You also leave out the little detail of how I gave fact based proof of Fox's bias against Obama in January of 2009....which quickly settled the dodge you and Asshat want to indulge in.

6. Damocles says, "How would that make me a neocon, it doesn't fit any definition of neocon I've ever seen? And it also appears as if you selected the 'hypocrite' choice of those two."

All one has to do is check the chronology of the posts to see that is NOT what you said. And since I already explained how your tactics fit into the neocon dodge routine, your pretending otherwise is just a waste of space to indulge your delusions.

7. Taichi says, "You're a neocon!" See above responses.

8. Repeat as necessary. See above responses.

I asked you in what way, even if you were "right", that I would be a "neocon" therefore. What do you mean I didn't "explain"... I quoted the post with your defense of MSNBC using the same statements (almost exactly) as conservatives do when talking about Obama's war on FOX News...

Oh stop lying Damo....the chronological posts don't support your BS. As ususal, you just go off the deep end whenever someone proves you flat out wrong...or says something you don't like but you can't refute. Grow up, will ya?

So far all you've done is take the long winded approach of what you attempt to hypocritically accuse me of here, just saying you are "right" with no capacity to back it up. You are unable to find one iota of information that shows only neocons disagree with the hypocrite Taichi, and you won't be able to.

Amazing...you lie, then you build on the lie as if there aren't posts that clearly contradict what you say. Get a grip, man!

Plus, nobody is going to ban you. It was a suggestion to you, genius. Since you obviously lose touch with reality whenever someone pokes a hole in that inflated ego of yours. You can't prove what I said to Asshat and Tinfoil is wrong...you can't disprove the information in my links, and you can't salvage the painfully obvious flaws in Monckton's answers...so you waste a LOT of space constructing this delusional BS of yours...so much more to pity you. You aren't a victim. Never claimed to be one....it's amazing how your mind warps things to fit your ego. You need therapy, man. Quit being deliberately ignorant and begin to do what you so constantly say you want others to do actually make arguments from facts rather than begin a dialogue with "You are a neocon" Folks, look what I previously wrote, how I responded to this fool, and the chronological posts that preceded this. The man is pathetic.

You constantly make me embarrassed for you. I don't like feeling empathy towards stupid.

What's the matter bunky? You're little ego gets bruised easily because you can logically win an argument or disprove what you don't like? TFB....grow the hell up and stop believing the warped image you see in the mirror. All you'll do now is just repeat your BS 6 ways to Sunday.....just like every other intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot on these boards. Carry on, I'm done kicking your sorry ass here. See ya around.
 
I swear, you are just plain ignorant. Does the Yamal cherry picking of 12 trees to base the global record on give you any concern? Science? LOL



12 trees were used to build the hockey stick graph.
It's a joke

Go back and read what I wrote, you chuckling buffoon! I swear, you neocon numbskulls either failed grade school reading comprehension or are fucking stupid enough to try and lie when proof to the contrary exists.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"
 
Last edited:
You moron. I showed you the evidnece that CO2 forcing has been overstated and you come back with more links about CO2. LOL What a dumbass
 
You moron. I showed you the evidnece that CO2 forcing has been overstated and you come back with more links about CO2. LOL What a dumbass

I wonder if I might interject here with a couple of questions that I am sure you might have answered previously. Of course, you are under no obligation to respond.

1. Do you think that CO2 emmissions have made, make or might make a difference to our climate?
2. Do you think that man has had a part of that (the emissions and/or climate change)?
3. Do you consider yourself to be totally free of obligation towards the husbandry of this planet?
They are all yes/no questions and require no more than a second or two thought.
 
I wonder if I might interject here with a couple of questions that I am sure you might have answered previously. Of course, you are under no obligation to respond.

1. Do you think that CO2 emmissions have made, make or might make a difference to our climate?
2. Do you think that man has had a part of that (the emissions and/or climate change)?
3. Do you consider yourself to be totally free of obligation towards the husbandry of this planet?
They are all yes/no questions and require no more than a second or two thought.


All low iq does is ask what he thinks are deep and probing questions.

Really, he's just moronic.
 
Back
Top