image stats
date added
previous votes
log in


indent register
indent recover

Global warming data put to a good use :>)

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
Global warming data put to a good use :>)

Comments for: Global warming data put to a good use :>)
Repukelican Report This Comment
Date: January 12, 2010 07:15PM

If a cold winter disproves Global Warming - then a hot summer must prove Global Warming. Right?
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 12, 2010 08:58PM

^^^^^I would say that was definitely flawed logic. ^^^^^

What constitutes global warming would be scientifically verifiable proof of it, which seems to be improvable at this juncture, or at the very best the data that's been presented on the concept seems tainted by those pushing a "man made climate change" agenda.

Have a look at this and see what some other scientists have to say about the current weather the northern hemisphere is experiencing as well as what they predict for the near future [] winking

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 12, 2010 09:22PM

bouncing smiley i love liberal "logic" smiling
bouncing smiley
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 12, 2010 10:47PM

Here's a thought ... since we have definitive reps from down on the other side of the planet who will be experiencing cold weather before we see it again maybe we can ask if they too find as unseasonably cold their next winter cycle as this one has been thus far on the "northern side".

With the temps they're seein now they might tend to lean towards acceptin the idea of global warming have a


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2010 10:51PM by Mrkim.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 13, 2010 08:16AM

Global warming makes no sense to me, it's going to be warmer it's going to be colder, I hear both predictions. All I can say is I just don't give a shit. There is nothing we can do about it. Even if we did stop using fossil fuels completely these people would still say it's not enough. They would blame it on cow farts and possibly even people farts. I really don't think the industrialization era has had enough time to affect the earth's environment in any measurable way.
brokntoad Report This Comment
Date: January 14, 2010 01:36AM

hmmmm.... the cartoon implies that since it is cold out that global warming isnt happening but if it were to be hot out and someone implies that global warming is happening then they must be using "liberal logic". Why doesnt using the same logic for both sides of the argument work?
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 14, 2010 01:48AM

you don't hear many repugnants squealin' warming now do ya?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14/01/2010 01:50AM by fossil_digger.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 14, 2010 01:52AM

i bet you're not much of a chess player. smiling
bouncing smiley
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 14, 2010 08:53AM

"hmmmm.... the cartoon implies that since it is cold out that global warming isnt happening but if it were to be hot out and someone implies that global warming is happening then they must be using "liberal logic". Why doesnt using the same logic for both sides of the argument work?"

Oh great and wise toad, why don't you take a stab at debunking the climatologists data who stand opposed to the concept of global warming? I know it's problee like a major challenge for you to attempt such a feat while runnin a train of logic without even any wheels, much less track to take it anywhere, but why not give it the good ol college try anyway.

My problem with "liberal logic" is it doesn't require its users to base their claims on verifiable, much less reasonable ideologies but prefers instead to utilize pie in the sky dreamlike visions based on fantastic improvable emotionally tainted BS. Even worse, then these same liberals will expect to use $$ slyly slipped from other folks pockets to push their agenda upon the same folks they took it from.

Ever seen "Resevoir Dogs" toad? In the opening vignette where they're all sittin in the restaurant havin breakfast Steve Beshemis' character Mr.Pink reveals the typical liberal mindset in his rant about tipping the waitress when he states that it must suck to be a waitress tryin to get by on minimum wage (or as is the case most often, less) , but it's unfair of a waitress to expect customers to tip her because the owner doesn't pay her enough.

He then goes on to say if the government were to propose a law to make the owner pay her better he'd support and vote for it, but he flat out waddn gonna take money outta his pocket to tip her for her labor. In effect this makes the point that government is the great social equalizer and that government, not the people themselves, should be expected to take care of the people, taking all responsibility away from the people to make righteous actions in life and instead expect "the government" to take care of it. handjob

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 14, 2010 11:15AM

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 14, 2010 05:40PM

I know it's a lot to read toad, and sorry, but there are a few big words in there too, but why not give a try anyway just on the off chance you might actually find something out that isn't spoon fed to you by some wack job agenda driven global warming warbler, eh grinning

Antarctica and the Myth of Deadly Rising Seas

By Marc Sheppard

On Monday, scientists from the Norwegian Polar Institute reported that they'd measured sea temperatures beneath an East Antarctic ice shelf and found no signs of warming whatsoever. And while the discovery's corollaries remain mostly blurred by the few rogue mainstream media outlets actually reporting it, the findings are in fact yet another serious blow to the sky-is-falling-because-oceans-are-rising prophecies of the climate alarm crowd.

For years now, alarmists have insisted that Antarctica is thawing thanks to man-made global warming. They warn that such melting of a frozen continent containing 90 percent of all the ice on the planet would inevitably lead to a cataclysmic sea level rise (SLR). Scary stuff, indeed.

However, there are several problems with their assertions, not the least of which is that all evidence of melting selectively focuses on the only area of the continent satellite evidence confirms is warming -- the western region in general, and the Antarctic Peninsula in particular.

But as ICECAP's Joe D'Aleo observed in 2008 [], the relatively small area of the peninsula offers an extremely poor representative sample, as it juts out well north of the mainland into an area of the South Atlantic well known for its "surface and subsurface active volcanic activity." And in the greater scheme, adds D'Aleo, "the vast continent has actually cooled since 1979."

Still, carbo-chondriacs blame the "collapse" of ten ice shelves in and around the peninsula on melting of the underside of the ice by global-warming-fueled rising ocean temperatures. And they insist that their models are spot-on in predicting that unless mankind stops pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it's only a matter of time before the entire continent melts. The effect of such an event, they caution, would be nothing short of a civilization-ending, 57-meter SLR -- a vision normally reserved to biblical fables or the wild imagination of Al Gore.

Of course, narrowly isolated melting doesn't support the hypothesis of widespread polar warming necessary to kindle such horrific images of metropolises submerged by anthropogenic impropriety. That's why locating and denouncing diminishing ice east of the Transantarctic Mountains ranks high on every green-funded researcher's to-do list. And that's also why it would appear that NPI scientists thought they had hit the jackpot when their models calculated that the ice shelves at Dronning Maud Land along Antarctica's northeastern border should be melting at the same rate as those farther west.

So last November, a team from NPI set out to investigate the status of just such a locale -- the Fimbul Ice Shelf. Their stated primary mission: to determine whether ice masses on the shelf are indeed currently on the decline.

Last month, the expedition drilled its first borehole into the 250-to-400-meter-thick floating ice in order to study the melting and ocean circulation underneath. But readings revealed by the instruments they lowered into the water below were not quite what was anticipated.

In fact, contrary to the warmer, ice-melting temperatures predicted by models, NPI oceanographer and project leader Ole Anders Nøst reported that "the water under the ice shelf is very close to the freezing point." Furthermore, there seemed to have been no change in almost five years:

We observed a roughly 50 meter deep layer of water with temperatures very close to the freezing point, about -2.05 degrees, just beneath the ice shelf. The highest observed temperature was about -1.83 degrees close to the bottom. The temperatures are very similar to temperature data collected by [equipment attached to] elephant seals in 2008 and by British Antarctic Survey using an autosub below the ice shelf in 2005.

Nøst concluded that "This situation seems to be stable, suggesting that the melting under the ice shelf does not increase."

As to the ocean circulation models that incorrectly showed "warm deep water flowing in under the ice shelves," Nøst admitted that "as this is not observed, the models are most likely wrong and should be improved."

Translation: In contrast to model forecasts, Antarctic ice shelf collapse still appears to be isolated to a very tiny area in the western region of a continent otherwise experiencing continued glacial and ice shelf advancement.

And that fact certainly casts further serious doubt on the U.N.'s most recent century-end SLR predictions. Last year, the 18- to 59-centimeter estimate that appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was increased to a full two meters, based entirely on fears of accelerated glacial melting in Greenland and Antarctica. Keep in mind that since the prolonged cold snap of the Little Ice Age ended in 1850, the global rate of SLR has remained essentially steady at approximately seven inches per century, due largely to thermal expansion.

Just months after the release of AR4 that the Union of Concerned Scientists offered these hyperactive projections to the 2007 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali:

Sustained warming of [2°C above pre-industrial levels] could, for example, result in the extinction of many species and extensive melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets—causing global sea level to rise between 12 and 40 feet.

Readers should be aware that the WAIS sheets UCS referred to are not to be confused with aforementioned ice shelves. While melting "sheets," which predominately lie above bedrock, might contribute to SLR, the ice "shelves" float atop the water and therefore have ostensibly the same impact on SLR frozen as they would melted. There has, however, been concern expressed that melting glaciers might flow faster toward the ocean if unencumbered by the barricading effect of the shelves.

Now, even the notoriously alarmist U.K. Met Office admits that the complete Greenland meltdown to which they'd attribute a seven-meter SLR "would take thousands of years" even if temperatures were to continue to climb. It's therefore quite logical to assume that the majority of the predicted SLR is expected to originate in Antarctica.

And yet, other than select ice shelves (which again are already afloat and would have no further impact upon SLR) in one minuscule area soaking in water warmed by volcanic activity, Antarctica isn't melting at all. And with air temperatures averaging consistently below zero and water temperatures barely above freezing -- even in summer -- nothing in the foreseeable future suggests it might...not even should temperatures, which have been falling since 1998, nonetheless rise to the mostly arbitrary yet internationally alarmist-approved [PDF] catastrophic level of 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

In fact, despite the IPCC insistence that global warming will be most prevalent at the poles, southern-hemisphere sea ice area has remained virtually unchanged since satellite sensors and analytical programs were first capable of measuring it in 1979.

So perhaps when the green-gospel-pronouncing IPCC releases its Fifth Assessment Report, tentatively due for 2014, contributors and lead authors alike might carefully consider the NPI findings, the steady rate of SLR over the past 150 years, and the overall resilience of Antarctic ice before formulating their next soggy doom-and-gloom prophecy. (And don't forget this undeniable fact: Across the continent, the 2008-2009 southern hemisphere summer hosted the lowest Antarctic ice melt in thirty years.)

Surely were these people bound by scientific concerns exclusively, there'd be no doubt whatsoever that they’d do just that.


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14/01/2010 05:41PM by Mrkim.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 14, 2010 06:47PM

i sense a tea baggin' racist comment coming smiling
bouncing smiley
FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: January 14, 2010 11:44PM

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 15, 2010 06:04AM

Why should any of us worry about global warming? Even if it were true it wouldn't happen until well after all the world's oil runs out and by then the problem would be over because we would not be using fossil fuels any longer. Not even our grandkids would be around when this would occur so I think we have more important issues which should be a more immediate concern to us now.
Great and Wise Toad Report This Comment
Date: January 15, 2010 10:45AM

I didnt take a stand on either side. I simply asked a question that you obviously dont want to answer.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 15, 2010 10:57AM

Interpretation of such things as cartoons is an individual thing toad and my interpretation of this one was that all the data on global warming could be put to good use as a great fire starter, which I agree with, since its seeming validity as "science" is at best tainted.

My thoughts still remain that the current condition outside my window has no bearing on the concept of global warmings validity. Collected and correlated verifiable data (like what I posted) is what's needed to make a determination of such things.

In essence I suppose that the long and the short of it is that NO I would not agree with your posted question grinning

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 16, 2010 06:24AM

The key word in image subject line is data. There is no data about global warming just supposition.
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2010 07:09AM

Mr Kim

You are fucking RETARDED.

Any fool that thinks global warming is limited to the air temps over a given country has the IQ of a grapefruit.

Conservatives believe Global Warming is occurring. The only question is to man's contribution to it.
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2010 07:15AM

Mrs. Kim

You compound your error by quoting meaningless data.

Only a retarded person like Sean Hannity or Sarah Palin thinks Global Warming means that the entire world is warming uniformly.

Scientists have already shown that the north pole is warming now while the south is cooling.

the rest of the earth is warming at a slow rate that will pick up.

and the south pole will be the LAST to warm up due to the earth's tilt.

I love when stupid people like yourself are taken in by non-scientific data due to a complete lack of understanding of the problem.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2010 08:48AM

Great, another mindless follower of the brainless ones, might as well just say "another one rides the (short) bus".

Since you claim such great knowledge of this crap ideology why not enlighten us all by posting the scientific data that supports your claims. Otherwise pour yourself a big ol cup of STFU and slither back into your hole with all the other mindless slugs smiling
bouncing smiley

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2010 11:56AM

i could post 1000 links "disproving" warming, or i could post the same amount of links "proving" it (very few are actual scientific fact based studies). people are only going to believe the ones that support their own agendas. the truth about it is that the ones that are trying to prove warming by man's intervention are the ones trying to tax the fuck out of people and companies to create a slush fund for their agendas. the non believers are the ones trying to save the country and the world from taxation without representation. pretty simple. and Beast....i'm not surprised that you support this horse shit.
how does it feel to be a puppet for the demochimps?
how does it feel to be a puppet for the destruction of the world economy?
what do you think you have to gain by this?
are you that stupid?
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2010 02:45PM

here's a few examples of liberal logic:

40) Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security. -- Obama foreign policy adviser Richard Danzig
39) I propose a limitation be put on how many sqares [sic] of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. -- Sheryl Crow
38) In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who's suffering. [But we must also think about] the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It's all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see [the terrorists] as a relative who's dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There's nothing better. -- Richard Gere
37) George Bush doesn't care about black people...They're giving the Army permission to go down and shoot us. -- Kayne West on the rescue efforts in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina
36) "Rove's re-election strategy was elegantly simple: Scare the bejesus out of Jesusland. [email protected] are headed your way! Satanic Muslims are hiding everywhere! That's all it took to get Jesusland to do the job. Intellectual conservatives like the National Review staff are flattering themselves if they honestly believe Jesusland cares about conservative thought. The "reality-based" folks are learning that Jesusland doesn't even care about jobs or the economy. In Jesusland, it's all the will of Jesus. No job? No money? Daughter got her clit pierced? Jesus is just f*cking with you again, testing your faith. Got the cancer? Oh well. Soon you'll be with Jesus. Reality is no match for a mystical world in which an all-powerful god is constantly toying with every detail of your mundane life, just to see what you'll do about it. Keep praying and always keep your eye out for homosexuals and terrorists, and you will eventually be rewarded ... all you have to do is die, and then it's SuperJesusLand, where you will be a ghost floating in a magic cloud with all the other ghosts from Jesusland, with Jesus Himself presiding over an Eternal Church Service." -- Ken Layne
35) Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before. -- Rahm Emanuel
34) I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. -- "Journalist" Chris Matthews
33) Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard, awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff...I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely. -- CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan in a New York Times column, admitting that CNN often didn't report newsworthy events in Iraq out of fear of what the regime might do
32) We all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist....To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack. -– Steven Jukes, global head of news for Reuters News Service, in an internal memo
31) The Pentagon as a legitimate target? I actually don't have an opinion on that and it's important I not have an opinion on that as I sit here in my capacity right now. -- David Westin, ABC News President
30) You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. -- Barack Obama
29) It's good (Michelle Malkin's) in D.C. and I'm in New York. I'd spit on her if I saw her. -- Geraldo Rivera
28) Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda -- worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was. -- MSNBC's Keith Olbermann
27) ...I would further strongly urge Democrats who don't believe marriage is between a man and a woman but who feel they ought to pretend to believe this in order to win elections (a plausible position) need to do a better job of pretending. I've heard a shockingly large number of politicians say things, in rooms where journalists are present, that make it perfectly clear that they think gay marriage is just fine but that the voters aren't ready for it. That's a sensible thing to believe, but you can't go around saying it if you're trying to win votes. If you're going to lie, then lie -- and lie convincingly! -- Matthew Yglesias
26) "No one's talking about how to keep the other side home on Election Day. It's a lot easier than you think and it doesn't cost that much. This election can be won by 200,000 votes. You target (Bush's) natural constituencies. For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you're an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion." -- Kerry supporter Moby explains his unique political strategy that has since been much more widely adopted by the Left
25) I want to go up to the closest white person and say: 'You can't understand this, it's a black thing' and then slap him, just for my mental health -- New York city councilman Charles Barron
24) While the rest of the country waves the flag of Americana, we understand we are not part of that. We don't owe America anything - America owes us. -- Al Sharpton
23) The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism. -- Natalie Maines
22) America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for... -- Cindy Sheehan
21) And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world. -- Jimmy Carter castigates the British for cooperating with his own country
20) Check out this startling excerpt from George Monbiot's new book Heat. It's about the climate-change "denial industry," which most of you are probably familiar with. What you may not know about is the peculiar role of the tobacco industry in the whole mess. I've read about this stuff for years and even I was surprised by some of the details. When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these b*stards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg. -- David Roberts, Grist Magazine
19) Until your daddy learns that it's not 'fun' to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He's so hooked on killing defenseless animals that they could be next! -- From a PETA booklet called "Your Daddy Kills Animals," which was designed to be handed out to children
18) I do believe that it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7 -- building 7, which collapsed in on itself -- it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade
1 and 2 got hit by planes -- 7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible. -- Rosie O'Donnell talks Trutherism
17) Is there such a thing as a man made stroke? In other words, did someone do this to him? -- Joy Behar, on The View, wonders if Republicans gave Senator Tim Johnson a stroke.
16) Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away. That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq. There’s no question that the leader of the military operations of the U.S. called back our military, called them back from going after the head of al Qaeda. -- Congressman Maurice Hinchey
15) Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything. -- Democratic Senator Majority Leader, Harry Reid
14) Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. -- Bill Clinton explains to a Long Island, N.Y., business group why he turned down Sudan's offer to extradite Osama Bin Laden to America in 1996
13) If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration. -- Al Gore
12) (Rush Limbaugh) just wants the country to fail. To me that's treason. He's not saying anything different than what Osama Bin Laden is saying. You might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight. ... Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? -- Wanda Sykes
11) I have a good news to report; Glen Beck appears closer to suicide - I'm hoping that he does it on camera; suicide is rampant in his family, and given his alcoholism and his tendencies towards self-destruction, I am only hoping that when Glen Beck does put a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, that it will be on television, because somebody will capture it on YouTube and it will be the most popular video for months. -- Mike Malloy
10) The President wants to talk about a terrorist named bin Laden. I don't want to talk about bin Laden. I want to talk about a terrorist called Christopher Columbus. I want to talk about a terrorist called George Washington. I want to talk about a terrorist called Rudy Giuliani. The real terrorists have always been the United Snakes of America. -- Malik Zulu Shabazz
9) "It's about time that we have an intifada in this country that changes fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every -- They're gonna say some Palestinian being too radical -- well, you haven't seen radicalism yet." -- U.C. Berkeley Lecturer Hatem Bazian fires up the crowd at an anti-war rally by calling for an American intifada
8) The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God d*mn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God d*mn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God d*mn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme. Jeremiah Wright
7) I root for hurricanes. When, courtesy of the Weather Channel, I see one forming in the ocean off the coast of Africa, I find myself longing for it to become big and strong--Mother Nature's fist of fury, Gaia's stern rebuke. Considering the havoc mankind has wreaked upon nature with deforesting, stripmining, and the destruction of animal habitat, it only seems fair that nature get some of its own back and teach us that there are forces greater than our own. -- James Wolcott, Vanity Fair Contributing Editor
6) General Petraeus or General Betray Us? ...Today, before Congress and the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us. -- MoveOn
5) Through every Abu aib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform....We pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?...[T]he recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary -- oops sorry, volunteer -- force that thinks it is doing the dirty work. -- The Washington Post's William Arkin
4) In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation. It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq. -- Seymour Hersh
3) Over time, however, the endless war in Iraq began to play a role in natural selection. Only idiots signed up; only idiots died. Back home, the average I.Q. soared. -- Ted Rall
2) As to those in the World Trade Center...Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. ...If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it. -- Ward Churchill
1) The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win." -- Michael Moore
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2010 03:25PM

Mrs. Kim

I don't have to post the data.

the data has already been posted by scientists in the field.

and it's accurate.

The funny part is that rightwing nutjobs like yourself are considered a fringer by conservatives who have seen and believe the reports.

You have never seen the data or the reports nor have the people you have read. Yet both of you nitwits feel you are experts on the subject.

Global Warming is a fact. The only question is whether man is contributing to it.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2010 03:27PM

yeah it's a fact...been happening ever since the ice age. eye rolling
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2010 03:28PM


"i could post 1000 links "disproving" warming"

Not that carry any weight.
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2010 03:29PM

"yeah it's a fact...been happening ever since the ice age."

Thanks for showing you have no clue what you are talking about on yet another issue
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2010 03:30PM

How bout' dem COWGIRLZ !
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2010 03:30PM

wanna buy a shitty QB?
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2010 03:33PM

so if there's so much warming proof, why can't human intervention be proved? it cannot be
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2010 04:52PM

"so if there's so much warming proof, why can't human intervention be proved?"

That's easy

It's like Mrs Kim's lilliputian dick.

We don't have the technology to measure it yet
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2010 05:03PM

Beastie, your Short Bus Frequent Riders card's gotta have more punches in it than a Foreman/Ali fight.

Having read volumes on both sides of the info surrounding global warming I find some major disparity in the 2 trains of thought that makes it an either or choice about which sounds more logical in light of all data available.

Having undertaken such a study, to me, the sheer statement of data shown by the scientists explaining the increased volumes of C02 relative to the periods stated and the results climatalogically they claim seemingly to have occurred and project to occur in the future just don't jive using any info except what they supply. Then further taking into account that these same researchers and claimants of looming global warmings outcome have been caught red handed attempting to manipulate the data leads me to feel their findings at best are questionable, if not outright fabrications of agenda driven wealth re-distributors on an international scale.

The data coming from the otherside of the fence seems to be stated in reasonable and logical (though at times quite complicated for a straight layman to follow) terms, and these scientists seem welcome to discussion on the topic which certainly scientifically seems to make even more sense as this is supposed to be the train of thought and logical progression scientific studies are predicated upon.

Lastly, there's another part of this that is a catch all for defining truth in many things. One camp stands ready to make tons of cash off their hypothesis in the form of international government taxation, regulation, energy/carbon credits, and research and marketing of "green products", while the other camp does not. With that in mind, who would be the most likely to seemingly be forwarding an agenda?

Following the money trail will tell you a lot about an issue, even when the science posed by either side is called into question

So, go ahead and choose not to state anything but your unfounded and insupportable claims, never even making an honest attempt at proving your point. Since this has always been your MO, I wouldn't expect any less, but .... get ready for a few more punches for your card when you do as they'll be well deserved should you make such a choice winking

Repukelican Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 01:45AM

Here is some "conservative logic" for you.

A couple e-mails from a corrupt scientist who likes to manipulate the results and statistics derived from his own experiments totally trumps mountains of scientific data from researchers around the globe.

The reason that conservatives are so opposed to believing that man-made pollution damages the environment and causes global warming is because most conservatives are not willing to change their lifestyles and get rid of their SUVs, power boats, RVs, ATVs, personal watercraft, snowmobiles, 4-wheelers, dirt bikes and other toys. Also, many conservatives enjoy living "the American dream" which means living in a big house in the suburbs, 30 miles from the office.

My point here is that it doesn't matter whether man is contributing to climate change or not. We need to develop alternative energy, conserve more, recycle more and pollute less. The USA cannot continue to use 25 percent of the world's resources with 1/20th of the world's population. It's not sustainable - especially now that the US is a consumer-based economy and doesn't manufacture many goods anymore.

It would be nice if conservative wishes would come true and we could all keep on living the same way that we've been living for the past 50 years - but we're at a tipping point, and we need to start doing things smarter right now or else there won't be a USA in another 20 years.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 03:06AM

If you wanna talk logic, it was actually many emails traded between multiple researchers over a period of time discussing how data could be or should be "adjusted" to make their claims more plausible.

The actual first mention I heard of the "global warming agenda" was a radio interview I caught about 5yrs ago with one of the initial researchers for a study the US govt. had funded. He summed it up in saying they had been given the result their research had to arrive at prior to even having undertaken the study and were told if their results ran contrary to the findings the govt wanted from their studies they'd find future funding for their research projects severely curtailed, if indeed they managed to get funded at all. That smacks much more heavily of agenda driven jiggery pokery in my eyes than it resembles anything like "good science".

This frugal conservative has a small car that gets 35mpg and a mini van for my shop when I need its capabilities, none of the toys you mentioned, unless you wanna consider a riding mower and weedeater as such (and no I ain't givin up the ridin mower so I can push mow 2 acres!), my commute is 43 steps from the front door of my cozy lil 2BR/2BA house to a shop filled with tools and shop equipment collected over the past 30+yrs., I save and resell my aluminum, steel and cast iron, and although I eat enough jalapenos to satisfy many households desire for them still see this lifestyle adding up as very conservative all in all.

My toys consist of computers with nice big monitors, audio and video excesses in files and DVDs .... and sound systems rock on

I'm in agreement that far too many people drive trucks, SUVs, Crown Vics and such, typically with one or 2 folks aboard when a small car would be a more reasonable approach and just as surely there are lots of other things that fall into the same categories of wastefulness and excess.

However, as a true capitalist, I feel like folks have the right to do whatever they feel comfortable financially in doing. I'm personally obviously not as successful a capitalist as some folks sad smiley


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18/01/2010 03:16AM by Mrkim.
Repukelican Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 03:57AM

The main problem is that there is no way to really test the theory of global climate change. But there is no denying that we are all living inside "the experiment" right now.

But as I said, we can't go on living the way we are living. Even if we have enough fossil fuel to last 100 years - OPEC will ensure that it becomes prohibitively expensive for most people to afford, long before it ever runs out.

It's befuddling how many conservatives resist the concept of energy conservation. In my experience, saving energy is EXACTLY the same thing as saving money. When you insulate your home, utility bills decrease. Get a more fuel-efficient car and you'll save money on gasoline. Add a solar water heater to your roof or a photo-voltaic array or a wind turbine, etc., etc.

Arguing about global warming accomplishes nothing. But what harm can it possibly cause if more people explore/develop energy alternatives and help to reduce energy consumption and environmental pollution?
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 05:49AM

Mrs. Kim

You are not equipped intellectually to understand anything on a high level

the fact is that the global warming data is NOT limited to a small number of people.

It was collected by 1000s of people with the aid of computers.

It was analyzed by computer models 1000s of times over the last 10 years.

You show a complete lack of understanding when it comes to the legitimate research process

to not know that data is filtered to bring truer results.

just admit that you are a conspiracy nutjob and we can go from there.

The fact is that you don't know anything on the subject personally. Reading media article or many media articles does not change this fact.

Media articles are 100% opinion.

Professional articles are 50% opinion which is 50% better than you can provide on any topic.

However there is no denying that weather has become more severe on the planet in the last 15 years regardless of the reason.

The most logical reason is due to global warming.

We are only beginning to formulate the reasons why

and the best bet is that man's existence is aiding the acceleration of the process.

As John McCain said last year. Even if man is not contributing to the problem, it is a necessary step to know that.

That means humans would know just how severe the problem is.

as long as conspiracy nutjobs like yourself exist, who couldn't find their asshole with a funnel, humans will never find the answers to problems that we endure.
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 06:00AM

"fossil fuel"

I don't think fossil fuel is the problem.

I think the totality of man's existence has accelerated what would have occurred naturally.

6.5 billion people walk the earth today as opposed to 1.6 billion in 1900.

the increase in people has sped up the process.

Growing food. Breathing. Industrial production. Animal population growth. All of it an more are the problem.

Unfortunately the earth's solution is much more severe than Cap and Trade.

The earth killed off animals and humans before. It will do it again.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 08:23AM

"The earth killed off animals and humans before. It will do it again."

Then let the Earth do it, we don't need the government helping it do it faster. Just leave us alone and let us enjoy the few years we have left. We can resume this issue if we live after 2012 anyway. LOL.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 10:38AM

While "going green" is indeed on one hand simply an extension of conservative, frugal and cost efficient ideologies/technologies which seem to be good for people and the planet overall, pushing the agenda of global warmingists which seems more more laden with the concept of international wealth redistribution as industrialized countries are expected to pay hefty taxes into an international fund which then is re-distributed to developing nations is nothing more than an attempt to slyly take from the haves and give it to the have nots which is just an extension of the socialist agenda afoot here in the US and abroad.

I'll state my own objection to your accusation that my research has been only to read "pulp" versions of climatologists and scientific study data as being patently false, both on the surface and further as I have read volumes of data provided by camps on both sides of this issue in the form of scientific studies beast. Congrats on actually attempting to state your own case in a somewhat reasonable manner on this issue (finally), but having weighed the facts and opinions on the issue of global warming I still stand 100% behind my thoughts on it.

In relation to the US dependence on foreign oil and technologies our very own government has held our oil exploration endeavors in check as drilling permits are denied US companies which in the end will bite us on the ass even more severely as foreign companies and countries are free to exploit the oil reserves located off our own coasts while American companies who could be putting Americans and American industries to work in doing so cannot. We are left instead to stand idly by as international oil concerns are capable of setting up rigs as close as a tad past the 12 mile marker off our shores, then turn around and sell us the oil the US govt. prevents us from drilling for, which seems patently ludicrous.

Then we have a congress who again puts the US economy on the international chopping block by mandating florescent "green" light bulbs and outlawing incandescent bulbs, which on the surface might sound reasonable and prudent until one finds that NO US company manufactures such bulbs, due again to regulations regarding their production because of the risks from the powdered mercury used in their manufacture.

These new florescent bulbs are instead made in China which effectively hands a congressionally mandated windfall to manufacturers outside our own shores while shuttering US production and companies as a byproduct of this process, mwhich again takes from the overall US economy and hands it to foreign interests. As if our trade deficit and overall national deficit weren't staggering enough, we have a congress that might as well be standing on our shores shoveling $100 bills into a jet stream blowing directly into Chinas banks!

As an aside to this discussion a seeming disparity certainly seems to also exist here as a logical question with a firm basis in morality can be asked ... "How is it reasonable to say that the manufacture of these products is too hazardous by US standards to happen here but it's suddenly A-OK for it to occur outside our shores?", and not only occur, but then be rewarded by the American consumers (by congressional mandate) for foreign companies producing a product deemed too lethal to manufacture here? Does anyone else see disparity, lack of overall morality and double dealing/double standards in this, 'cause I sure do (*facepalm*)

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 10:52AM

Hey beast, you mentioned "the planet" having killed off humans/plants and animals in the past.

Just how pray tell did that happen?

If you answer anything other than severe cyclic climatological shifts in our weather (just like the ones mentioned by climatologists which relate to global periods of warming and cooling throughout the whole history of our planet) I'll sure be curious in how else this might have occurred handjob

aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 11:52AM

"Hey beast, you mentioned "the planet" having killed off humans/plants and animals in the past.

Just how pray tell did that happen?

If you answer anything other than severe cyclic climatological shifts in our weather"

The weather is the result of the actual problem.

plus the climate change we have experienced in the last 15 years is MASSIVELY ACCELERATED which is what the cause for concern

the timeline for destruction has sped up and the only factor to change is the number of humans on the planet
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 11:53AM

"Then let the Earth do it,"

Earth isn't the only thing doing it now.

Man is throwing gas on the fire.
FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 12:25PM


Only a complete moron would think that "hide the decline" might actually mean there was a decline, and that CRU manipulated their data to hide it. That's just absurd.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 01:24PM

Wow beast your conclusions seem to be reaching even lower lows than any previously posted nonsense.

Let me see if I have this right. The current climatological events were somehow transported back in time so that earth science researchers studying trends over the past few million years today could then find the same results repeating themselves today, but then somehow through slight of hand methodology and manipulation of data arrive at the conslusion that we have somehow TODAY caused these trends which also exist in the past?

Man, that's an even wackier claim than the religinuts claiming the dinosaur bones were placed here to "test mans faith" totally

The answer you were so obviously trying to avoid is that scientific study of earths weather supports at times dramatic enough swings in our weather patterns to have threatened and even decreased life on the planet in the past.

Then, if as you say, the shift has been so dramatic in the last 15yrs towards global warming I'll ask that you explain the actual decline of global temps in the past few years that the global warmingists are doin their dead level best to down play or outright deny, even when their own researchers are arriving at these facts?

Perhaps as one last great feat I'd suggest you attempt to educate us all how global warming seems reasonable in light of actual growth of the ice caps at both poles in the past few years? I mean, if global warming is SO DRAMATIC IN THE PAST 15 YEARS, how could such developments of fresh ice growth seem logical, much less explicable in the face of such easily verifiable data?

Your attempt to revert to improvable wildly agitated claims without any substance along with attempting to distract the focus of an argument you're ill equipped to defend by trying to change the focus with tangent claims and BS just signals a return to the SOP you've always used in the past ... all babble with no substance (*horse*)

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 02:32PM

since the Liberals are trying to destroy the economy they should pay a 75% payroll about that?
makes as much sense as the govt. charging for crap and tax right?
FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 05:23PM

You filthy fucking deniers make me sick! Every time you breathe, the Earth-goddess dies just a little bit more, and AlGore drowns another (CGI) polar bear. Why do you hate the Earth?
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 08:51PM

Ok frosty, I can take insults but damn man, callin me some sneaky assed French term for an unwashed sock darner is goin just a bit too far dude! And ... I'll have ya know I even tried to be a good lil human and held my breath to try and give a bit of sustenance to Gaia. 'Course all I could give her was a tad over 60 seconds worth, but screw it, at least I tried.

But I gotta tellya that damned Gore dude must've stopped by here one night and made off with all my polar bears 'cause I ain't seen a one of 'em since he made that fat carbon trail to Copenhagen a cuppla weeks ago .... sneaky thievin bastidge!

If any of ya'll stumble across Al tell him I want my bears back, and I mean NOW! The sturgeon have been gettin thick as thieves in my tank without them boys 'round the place and I've seen a whole gaggle of them damned illegals wanderin around the grounds here which sure didn happen so long as them white furred bitches were here cruisin the ice fields that developed here in Texas last month (*binladen*)

FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 09:15PM

Blame the dentists!

True story: On the main concourse of our airport, there are not one, but TWO stuffed polar bears on display. They were shot about 20 years apart, and both were shot by dentists. Why do dentists hate polar bears so much? I guess they don't floss enough, or something.

(Would "denialist" be better?)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18/01/2010 09:17PM by FrostedApe.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2010 09:37PM

Ah hell, I've been called worse. After all, I've been married 3 times, so ....

Just don't call me late for supper if there's grilled peppers on the table hot smiley

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 19, 2010 07:44AM

Ok, form what I can gather from reading beast's and frosty's post they believe the best way to save the Earth is to kill off all human beings. If that is the answer what makes them think they will be the ones left alive? Maybe zero population growth is the answer?
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 19, 2010 10:48AM

Ape forgot to use the correct font, Beast is following the yellow brick road.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 20, 2010 07:20AM

NO beast is doing what he always does, run contrary to everyone else.
FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: January 21, 2010 01:29AM

Yes, sadly, the Interwebs still lacks a standard sarcasm font.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 21, 2010 07:12AM

I wish someone would come up with one. Sarcasm is really difficult in text.
FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: January 22, 2010 12:26AM

The safe bet is to assume that I'm being sarcastic, unless you have some reason to believe otherwise. Like now, for instance.