1. 

Dana Master of Lies was a disgusting propagandist, who moved on to a better paying eco propaganda job.

When climate-gate first broke and we discovered the data tampering and the effort to hide the decline, Dana's response was it's terrible, wow I thought, now we're getting somewhere, until i read the rest of the sentence, 'It's terrible that the criminals who hacked the emails aren't being locked up'.

This is the mentality of what we're dealing with, truth doesn't matter, only the green agenda.

I know it's frustrating spending billions on something that doesn't seem to be much of a problem at all. You are correct that the money could better be spent elsewhere, especially on infrastructure to get clean water to everyone in poor countries, but you also have to consider that not a lot was being done to achieve that BEFORE the catastrophic global warming hoax either.

Another thing to consider is that we're headed towards a renewable energy economy regardless of what the alarmists or the skeptics say. There will come a time when drilling for oil just isn't economically feasible anymore.

Wow, looks like you've finally lost it Pat. I was always quite civil to you in email exchanges, and you've returned the favor numerous times by being as insulting as possible in virtually all your questions.

Here's an easy question for you: just how much science have you studied Pat? From your questions I'm thinking not much more than high school chemistry, and poorly understood at that, but I'd really like to know. Can you be honest enough to tell people how far your science education has gone?

EDIT for Pat: I'm still waiting, was H.S. chemistry an overestimate on my part?

Another EDIT: Pat has evaded my question, but he wrote me in an email:

"Chemistry is becoming even more clear to me. It's funny when I really do have the math capabilities to figure out the formulas. The rational discussion of how global warming works escapes the best of people."

Well, at least it escapes people who are untrained in science.

What would Exxon Mobil do if it thought proof could be found that releasing high amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere did NOT cause global warming? Exxon would hire RESPECTED scientists to do the research.

What would Exxon Mobil do if it knew emitting much CO2, relative to what's was there 100 years ago, causes global warming? How about -- funnel money to people like Fred Singer or Pat Michaels through a net of 'think tanks'?

Please remember that oil companies are not run by stupid people and they can afford to directly hire the best and the brightest, paying a high salary. Can you cite any research by a scientist who works for Exxon Mobil that disproves global warming? Start looking through all the research journals, it'll keep you to busy to waste the electrons on this board.

<< like Big Gryph, Dana, Gary F, Gringo, jungle jim, pegminer, and Climate Realist. They can't prove that "Climate Change" is made by man and we can certainly prove that the planet remains on a "Natural Climate Variability Schedule". >>

No you can't.

First, there's no such thing as a 100% certainty in Science and certainly not with regard to the current observed warming being part of earth's natural climate variability. It has been studied extensively and the combined scientific knowledge of decades of peer-reviewed papers unmistakably shows that were earth's well-known and well-understood "Natural Climate Variability Schedule" be to blame for recent climatic changes, it actually should be cooling right now when the complete opposite is observed.

Thus, 2 scientific observations can be made both of which have a high certainty level:

1) current observed warming is not part of a natural cycle;

2) current observed warming is very likely slightly offset (but not sufficient to invert trend) by natural cooling phase (in other words, observed warming is actually alot higher, leaving aside its initial cause).

<>

Since when is Joe Barton a 'professional'?

Apart from that, no one is stopping these 'professionals' or any others to address the scientific evidence in a scientific manner. Yet that is exactly where they fail. They go way outside the scientific field raising their criticism on blogs and in opinion pieces. Why on earth would they do that if they had such a strong scientific case?

The only logical answer, one which can be backed up with multiple examples, is that scientifically speaking they fail, over and over again. And since they are too biased to accept science which contradicts their convictions, their religious believes and/or other dogmas, they attack the science in a wholly unscientific manner cherry-picking data which supports their believes while conveniently ignoring other, repeating long-debunked myths and endlessly criticizing scientists who do stick to the scientific method and even using 'Mccarthyite tactics' against them (Joe Barton, James Inhofe,etc.).

The very fact that you would list Joe Barton as a 'professional' who should be able to peer-review real climate scientists' work shows just how far out your are Pat, not to mention what a wholly unrealistic take on Science you have.

First - I do not give "thumbs-down."

Second - Fred is right that the "proof" people generally speak of is not a scientific concept.

Third - the scientific method is an epistemology. It is the only epistemology of objective human knowledge that we have and as far as we know, it works.

Fourth - I am not an environmentalist; I'm a scientist who studies certain aspects of the environment, including paleoclimate and proxy reconstructions of climatic variables. I have been attacked by both the political left (Gore's Senate committee in the early 1990s) and by the political right (Exxon goons McIntyre and McKitrick), not to mention the hundreds of nitwits over the last few years who do not know anything about anything.

Finally - I cannot remember the last time Dana posted anything here, but it has been quite a while.

>>4.5 billion years of evidence and the recent past of our history. <<

You need to learn something about Stationary Processes.

YA has certainly been infested with them lately. I suspect the election of Obama has seriously discouraged (angered) some and emboldened others. Statism is on the rise. Luckily it is becoming more and more difficult to blame the world's problems on Bush and CO2.

Yes Tom, Humans have emitted CO2 and that CO2 should have contributed to the warming we have had in the last 100 years. You may not understand, but there is a considerable difference if it caused all of the warming (as the ignoramuses here often claimed) or most of the warming (as the ingnormuses here often claim) or a small part of the warming and it also makes a difference if it has the real potential to cause catastrophic warming or if this is just a fantasy of the leftists mentioned above.

I've never seen such a mindless bunch of environmentalists like Big Gryph, Dana, Gary F, Gringo, jungle jim, pegminer, and Climate Realist. They can't prove that "Climate Change" is made by man and we can certainly prove that the planet remains on a "Natural Climate Variability Schedule". Can we please have a final argument so we don't have to deal with all of the depression of getting "Thumbs-down" all of the time? There is no proof that man causes "Global Warming"! I wish they would present some!

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that man's release of CO2 is contributing/causing AGW. Virtually every scientific organization on earth has come to that conclusion. You have no evidence that this conclusion is wrong, so don't be stupid. Follow the scientific research, not the politicians and the CO2 generating industries.

you are so evil i put you in the same category as the mentally ill and islamic terrorists.

i really do

Dude... you're a dumbfu**. And you feel free to step up anytime little man and I'll be happy to make you look like the simpering p**sy you are. Come get some.

"Someone has been out drinking."

No.. I think someone is just blisteringly stupid.

Post here. If you're point is so valid it should survive any public scrutiny you'd care to subject it to. But you're a whiny doucehbag and would get owned directly.

Here is a story of a small boy.

Mother earth gave birth to us.Father Sun give light to see the beauty of our mother. And You and Me created some stories.Hmm. It is about Competition. This is my entry, the TRUTH.Just close your eyes. You will see a black background, that is the beginning and there are red balls passing around, those are the heat and become the stars. If holy spirit is in you, You will see it. Heat is the beginning and the end. Where heat come from? It come from energy. God = negative and positive. Positive alone can not create power, without power no energy, without energy no heat, without heat no life. Life on earth is only story so is the universe. It is also easy to predict the future, it will be hotter and hotter and more disaster to come more unpredictable weathers it will be more difficult to control the food supply because of drought and there will be a big war. We are going to be place on test by our Father because you let Jesus suffer more. Who is Jesus? It is You. You alone is God. Please create an advance story and move your ***, if you want to solve the problem. Anyway the end of the universe will be white 100%, everyone is going to see it.*God created the universe by word and so the stories.Heat from the head and heat from the heart. That is what really matter most.The question is this, are we 1 or 0? (^-^) Note: Big Bang, string, finger print,dark matter, wave and vibration effect theory will not occur without Heat.In every story there is beginning and an end, right and wrong play a big roll on it.

While you are right in that there is no defenitive proof that man is causing global warming, there is plenty of proof that global warming is happening. And if man's actions are not cuasing it, we can safely say that our actions are exasperating it.

The facts are that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that without greenhouse gases the earth average temperature would be 33C colder (a giant snowball) and that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. There is not one scientist who denies these facts.

Someone has been out drinking.

Pat: Not a question.

You know you're wrong, just give up