That's what $4.7 billion in tax payer money buys you, an agenda. It's sad to see you go off on such a idiotic tirade that proves nothing other than the fact that you believe everything you read. Instead of logically deducting evidence that points towards bad science, because there's money to be had and made, you gobble it up like a $2 whore at a Russian bath house.
I never claimed that there is no warming, there's just no evidence to support that it's man made. If the scientific community who supports this ridiculous idea is so sure of the facts, why has every single scientist supporting the idea backed out of having a discussion/debate over these so called studies? There's only one reason, follow the money.
Of course you dismissed John Coleman as a conspiracy theorist, any simpleton when faced with facts that go against his beliefs would claim such.
Since you are so uneducated on this subject, you should go research Roger Revelle and Hans Sueus(sp?) which were the two scientists who wrote the initial paper on carbon dioxide and man's influence on climate. This same study was used by Al Gore, who also named Revelle as his mentor (even though Revelle gave him a D in his class and barely remembered Gore), as his spearhead of the campaign for global warming which has now been aptly named climate change. You should pay attention to what both men, Hans and Roger said in their later years, that their paper was inconclusive and that there wasn't enough data to show that man had any impact on climate. There are more and more scientists speaking out, it's a shame that most of them are hiding behind their fund money or we could finally move on from this bullshit excuse to kill poor people off by raising energy rates to unreasonably high levels.
This is just one of the MANY farces on this whole scam which I could sit here and shoot a bazooka through all day long.
LMAO... I said you didn't need to do this to yourself. Lets go through your retarded post, point by point.
"That's what $4.7 billion in tax payer money buys you, an agenda. It's sad to see you go off on such a idiotic tirade that proves nothing other than the fact that you believe everything you read. Instead of logically deducting evidence that points towards bad science, because there's money to be had and made, you gobble it up like a $2 whore at a Russian bath house."So, previously in this thread you used NOAA data to prove your point, indicating you find them to be reliable. Now when the same org disagrees with everything you are saying (a clear layman) you claim they are corrupt. Wouldn't you think they would fake the data even more? why 1 degree, simpletons like you think one is small so why not make it larger.Meanwhile, you seem oblivious to the fact that science has built in checks like peer review amongst other things, while this coleman moron thinks and anova is when a star blows up.
Of course you dismissed John Coleman as a conspiracy theorist, any simpleton when faced with facts that go against his beliefs would claim such.You don't seem to understand what a conspiracy theorist is, he is the definition. Let me help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory:A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation:
Now if you look above... nevermind, let me help you puddin
Mr. Coleman claims and I quote.
"“Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental-extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the 'research' to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims.”
- Mr. Coleman, head tart.
Now do I need to point out the obvious or can you make the connection to see why I did in fact dismiss him as a consipracy theorist. if he had sex with boys I would call him a pedophile, you call him a greek romancer.
Since you are so uneducated on this subject, you should go research Roger Revelle and Hans Sueus(sp?) which were the two scientists who wrote the initial paper on carbon dioxide and man's influence on climate. This same study was used by Al Gore, who also named Revelle as his mentor (even though Revelle gave him a D in his class and barely remembered Gore), as his spearhead of the campaign for global warming which has now been aptly named climate change. You should pay attention to what both men, Hans and Roger said in their later years, that their paper was inconclusive and that there wasn't enough data to show that man had any impact on climate. There are more and more scientists speaking out, it's a shame that most of them are hiding behind their fund money or we could finally move on from this bullshit excuse to kill poor people off by raising energy rates to unreasonably high levels.I have read it, that was how long ago? 1988. He was on the side of warming you asshat and urged that more data needed to be found, we have it. It's been close to twenty years.
You are also aware of Singers role in the last paper correct? he completely wrote it himself. Also, you are aware he was against drastic actions due to the economic impacts, I agree.
You had enough