brenthutch

Pot smoking democrate from CA, nuf said.

Sorry Bill, the thread is my thread about how green jobs are a myth, and have been proven to be so by the nations that have advocated for them. It is not about my horrible spelling. The discourse goes as follows: Me: I read in the WSJ that 2+2=4 K******: The WSG are a bunch of fascist Nazis Me: well that may be, but can you discuss my point that 2+2 may equal 4 K******: You cant even use correct punctuation, you are below contempt and do not deserve a response. Me: Yes I am an idiot, but can we get bact to the point of my post?

You must be tenured.

really? "Kalland, Bill, Amazon?? Nothing to say? "

I do agree with that. It is no longer considered controversial that the IPCC reports are a pack of non substantiated propaganda. It is common knowledge and therefore no longer remarkable.

yawn. Do you care to address the point of green jobs? Or is that above your pay grade? Golly I am just a dumb hay seed, and dont know nothing. That is why I have to quote others. Heck I cant spel or even congegate a verb. I rely on folks that r much more smarter than I am to support my arguments. That is why I am confused that a academic such as yourself cant even deal with a point put forth by a nuckelhead like me.

Thanks for making my point. Bait presented, hook set. You cant address the substance of the article so you attack the messenger .

Forgive the mixing of metaphors, here is a quick read. Mark Landsbaum: What to say to a global warming alarmistBy MARK LANDSBAUM 2010-02-12 13:30:12 It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We're on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming. At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming. ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?" FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy? ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years. HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded. PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him. PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation. SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that? SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked. AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported. PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases. RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree. Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented. U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures. IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse? ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days. ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim. AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors. AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming. Fold this column up and lay it next to your napkin the next time you have Al Gore or his ilk to dine. It should make interesting after-dinner conversation.

Try to stay focused on the message not the messenger, Professor. Deal with the substance, not hyperbole and ad holmium attacks.

Kalland, Bill, Amazon?? Nothing to say?

Quoting the NYT is just about as sound as quoting the IPCC. But that aside, what is your point? What would you suggest we do about it?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaking-anti-lobbyist-obama-administration-recruited-left-wing-lobbyists-to-sell-bogus-green-jobs/ Sorry no clicky

Or this one who cant pronounce corpsman, dosent know the diff. between a breathalizer and an inhaler, thinks we have 57 states. ect ect. The bigger problem is that he was RECONFIRMED BY 10 TO 1.!?!??! That is more indicative of the troubles with motown. Not just one idiot but a bunch of them.

Republiclown?!?! Oh I get it. A republican and a clown mushed together. Now that is witty. Where do you come up with these gems?

No need to wait

No dogma here, I started out believing in AGW (who wouldnt it intuitively makes sence) but my curisity was piqued when I heard the science was settled and no one could questions the IPCC. My beef is with the the science or lack there of of the IPCC report and the proposed solution of cap and trade. Even Dr Mann agreed that cap and trade would have no measurable effect on global climate. I am sure that man made co2 may have some effect on climate but is is in the order of .5-1 degree per hundred years and well within the normal variability of past climate swings. I have a problem with the stoplight mentality of many AGW belivers (say they are green because they are to yellow to admit they are red) (sorry for the hyperbole but I cant pass up a good joke).

A quick glance shows reports from M Mann (self proclaimed "Mr Global Warming") Quotes from the IPCC with regards to Himalayan glacier melt, and admited exagerations over sea level rises. That is some good non biased stuff there. I feel sorry for you guys, I really do. You depended on the UN to provide a non political scientific report (IPCC) to help inform your position on AGW. You were lead down a primrose path by a bunch of profiteers. It is now time to look for a pivit point and an exit strategy.

What type of gun was used? Long gun? Pistol? Wheel gun? Semi? Shotgun?

That would be a futile effort. There is absolutely no way Obama doesn't get the nomination. Nobody in his right mind would attempt to oppose him from the Democrat side. Ted Kenedy ran against Jimmy and JC had better numbers at this time in his presidency. OTOH Clinton looked week at this point and made a big comeback.

Could there be such a thing as a credible site that questions AGW? (in your mind) Can you send me a link.

Well played sir, well played indeed

Have you taken a look at a code pink rally? They are all White!!! Clearly they are just as racists as the tea party if not more so. Come to think of it most of the folks on moveon.org, huffington post and daily kos are white as well. That is proof positive that the left are a bunch of racists. It is funny that on MSMBC they were freaking out about a open carry "tea bagger," they kept showing a close up of his m4 slung across his back never mentioning that he was an African American!?!?

I am just a average joe knucklehead. That is why it is so satisfying.

I dont claim to be otherwise.

I follow this thread like I follow MSNBC. There is nothing more satisfying than watching the smug, know it all punks, as their world crumbles around them. Loving every minute of it.