patrick.net

Ironman says

BTW, I'm STILL waiting on your answer to this question:

Ironman says

Answer my question first. What's the largest percentage in the greenhouse gas category?

The answer he's looking for is "water vapor"; see http://grist.org/climate-energy/water-vapor-accounts-for-almost-all-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

"just look at what is happening in california since the green-aid went down the gullet."

What is that?

Bigsby says

Which answers the question of conflict of interest.


If enough headway is not made during the timeframe of the first grant, successive grants (read "paychecks") are in jeopardy. Time to massage the numbers for personal security??

Grants aren't paychecks for tenured professors, are they? They're funding for research of interest to them. And what do you think a grant proposal entails? They aren't saying that 'I'm going to prove global warming by doing X,' are they? The scientists do very specific research that contributes to overall understanding of what is happening.

You've got it exactly right. In fact misappropriating grant money for personal use is something that CAN get you fired. Winning grants can be highly prestigious and further someone's career by allowing them to publish, attend conferences, etc but any financial incentives will be indirect and down the line (in the form of a promotion or moving to a higher paying department elsewhere). If you don't have tenure, winning grants can help you get it. A lot.

bdrasin says

The answer he's looking for is "water vapor"; see http://grist.org/climate-energy/water-vapor-accounts-for-almost-all-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

I know. He's been over this before. It's a distraction.

He continues to post that CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere like it's some sort of breakthrough that no scientist has realized. It's basically the typical Republican argument that common sense trumps science. Another reason people like him are leading us back into the dark ages.

Ironman says

Sure thing, that's why left-wing radical blog sites (not scientific sites) are constantly used by the Libbies to justify their Global Warming scam...

Nice job!!

Huh? Non-scientific sites? You're completely delusional. Every scientific site is in agreement on climate science.

Ironman says

tatupu70 says

Huh? Non-scientific sites? You're completely delusional. Every scientific site is in agreement on climate science.

Then why are you libbies always quoting left-wing radical sites like grist.org, thinkprogress, Skeptical Science and more as the "authorities" and bible on G.W.? That kinda' destroys your argument completely...

Here's another non, scientific, left-wing radical source (written by scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego and Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading) which says the same thing. Go ahead and read it, it's only 34 pages not counting references: http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/02_Norris_and_Slingo.pdf

Ironman says

Then why are you libbies always quoting left-wing radical sites like grist.org, thinkprogress, Skeptical Science and more as the "authorities" and bible on G.W.? That kinda' destroys your argument completely...

Uh, we're not. I usually see NASA data, NOAA data, and peer reviewed papers on here.

Ironman says

Lie much?

OK great--please show me the scientific site in disagreement then. Not a site staffed by one crackpot.

In the West, the authoritarian impulse increasingly draws on the old progressive notion of government by experts. For at least a century, influential parts of the intelligentsia – starting with the great futurist H.G. Wells – imagined a society controlled by what he called “the new republic,” in which a select group of the most talented and enlightened citizens controlled society, largely undercover, unelected but all-powerful.

Government by expert has one fundamental problem: It does not inspire the masses. But now, with Pope Francis lining up with green stalwarts, environmental kingpins like hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer can now merge their greenness with religious faith, ideology with theology. After all, what can be better than combining scientific certitude with papal infallibility?

Of course, some elements of the pope’s message may be less endearing to the super-rich green capitalists. Perhaps some wayward acolyte might suggest that we could help the poor more by confiscating the holdings of the rich, or even suggest the immorality of a few living very large while telling the rest of us to live ever smaller.

The oligarchs, of course, are unlikely to embrace a Bernie Sanders-style social democracy. Instead, they may find more-useful models in the Middle Ages, before distinctions between theology and science first deepened. In that era, the Church governed both fact and fantasy. The Church also concerned itself with the poor, but studiously avoided challenging the very economic and social order that often served to keep them that way.

One casualty of the new alliance of the scientific establishment and the church could be free thought and debate. In the new atmosphere, those who dispute the “truths” shared by the scientific establishment and the papacy could face increasing demonization, if not worse. Indeed, one progressive, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehorse, has openly suggested that those who criticize the climate change agenda should be subject to federal racketeering charges.

Every year San Diego winters feel colder. We're right by the ocean(literally a few blocks from the bay), and still get days below 40. I'm tired of waiting for this promiseland of perpetual summer! I'm getting a bunch of 25 gallon CO2 tanks to run 24/7 in my yard, then I'm going to buy the belchingist/fartingist cow you've ever seen. And if that doesn't work I'll start hosting climate change conferences in my front yard. I bet the CO2 emissions from these greencats jetsetting everywhere will get me endless 70 degree days for sure!

Next week will be a differnt chart.
(THEY!)
Have already got a chart for every debunk that they know their data wont support.

We need more than a few people's say so.