^ Fucking liar. You won't show.

7/13/2007 3:36:55 AM

Are you done trying to derail this thread? If you aim to make this some school yard brawl then by all means buck up and send the PM.

Unfortunately, I am fairly well convinced that you have no intentions of discussing neither global climate change nor other environmental issues with any degree of intelligence other than taking pot shots with snippy little articles from biased sources. That, sadly, is truly deserving of your oh so famous .

7/13/2007 3:57:20 AM

PM SENT!

7/13/2007 4:00:50 AM

Aww. Is it past the grumpy old man's bedtime? Or did you fail in yet another attempt to pick up a college age girl? /comfort

7/13/2007 4:15:16 AM

Like I told you--anytime, dick.

7/13/2007 4:18:23 AM

7/13/2007 8:01:40 AM

7/13/2007 9:38:39 AM

Al Gore lost this thread

7/13/2007 10:55:03 AM

I am still trying to figure out what caused him to PMS like that in the first place. Surely by now he is used to being called out as a phony and his articles' content called into question. It is kind of unsettling knowing that there is some grumpy old ass geezer sitting at home mumbling about your demise.

Too bad this failure of a thread has been rotting for 28 pages now. But what more can you expect from HookGeezer?

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 6:43 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2007 6:42:43 PM

^ Fuck you. I've never been called out for shit that I didn't answer--and you know it, motherfucker.

You're a fucking punk ass loser. Your ideology is failed--just like you.

PS: Fuck you--again.

7/14/2007 1:29:28 AM

QQ more.

7/14/2007 2:51:36 AM

^


I'll bet you won't cry if you jam that box of tissues right up your ass. I mean, it's a heavily traveled orifice, am I right?

Back to the topic at issue--before the left-wing nutballs took us off course: Robert Kennedy Jr., taking the typical left-wing nutball blogger approach at Live Earth, has accused Exxon of being "villainous"--and the bug-eyed pot bangers loved it.

But Kennedy went further. Apparently, if you don't agree with the so-called global warming consensus, you are now a "traitor," according to Kennedy.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Heku9oTLysg

Un-fucking-believable.

7/15/2007 11:30:08 PM

well, I saw a story today on how some higher-up in the EPA threated a GW dissenter, claiming he would ruin the dissenter's reputation and career if the dissenter put out any more columns denying AGW. I can't find a link to it anywhere, otherwise I would make a thread about it. Just figured I would throw this little tidbit of info into the mix. Nice to see how tolerant GW proponents are. carry on.

7/27/2007 7:54:48 PM

Watts' up? Spotlight shines on local weatherman's latest research

Quote :

"A Chico meteorologist is garnering national attention for his latest project -- checking the condition and placement of hundreds of weather stations used to monitor the nation's climate. So far, Watts and his volunteers have found and photographed 63 stations, all available on Watts' site surfacestations.org. Photos show some stations placed in parking lots near cars, buildings and cell phone antennas -- places the guidelines say are off limits. Watts, and others, are concerned how objects near a station affect what thermometers record. Buildings, parking lots, air conditioners and sewage treatment plants near weather stations may emit heat and ultimately skew readings. 'The reliability of the whole surface temperature record is called into question,' Watts said."

Quote :

"Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado, said research shows warming trends and a human influence. But, regardless of the global warming debate or policy matters, he said better climate monitoring is needed to determine the extent and areas of the warming. 'It's really for the best assessment of the climate,' Pielke said. 'We need temperature data that is located in locations that is fairly representative of a large area.' Pielke said the National Weather Service should have had a station-checking process similar to Watts' 'years ago.' He said Watts' work is serving a need to know how the stations gather data. Pielke's previous research has shown many weather stations have been poorly placed. 'They're very important because this is the data that is used to construct the anomalies across the United States,' Pielke said."

http://www.chicoer.com/ci_6258304?IADID=Search-

http://surfacestations.org/

And then there's this:

The EPA Takes Threat Against a Climate Change Skeptic Very Seriously

Quote :

"The head of the Environmental Protection Agency says he will investigate a threatening letter sent to a global warming skeptic by the head of a group advocating the use of renewable energy. The Washington Times reports American Council on Renewable Energy President Michael Eckhart wrote to Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis — 'It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity.' The EPA is a member of ACORE — and so are several other government agencies. Eckhart told the Times he apologizes to all who were offended by his choice of words, and says the letter was a private communication in the context of what he called 'personal combat and jousting.'"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291241,00.html

This is the entire communication in question:

Quote :

"Marlo – You are so full of crap. You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on. Mike Michael T. Eckhart President American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)"

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 8:58 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2007 8:39:58 PM

old, man

7/27/2007 8:43:16 PM

You all should check out this month's Scientific American.

Pwns the hell out of the denyiers.

7/28/2007 12:36:31 AM

^ WTF are "denyiers" (sic)? And you teach?

7/28/2007 1:09:02 AM

so...

you really are a douchebag, huh?

7/28/2007 1:18:28 AM

The data could show the effects of urban heat island effect. As we continue to recklessly sprawl into habitat we put down roads, buildings, and houses that will cause the area around them to heat up. As a result the overall temperature will rise. I do think it is irresponsible to set up weather stations by buildings and parking lots initially it is another thing is they were developed after the station was there. It's a chicken and egg scenario. If he could show that these stations were placed in their locations after the development of heat sources/reflectors then he might have a point. Plus, surface data is only a fraction of the total array of ways that we monitor temperature or any other weather information.


As for the second bit I am sure you posted the link from Faux News because they were the first on the scene foaming at the mouths to hail this Environmental Puppet Agency guy as some kind of victim. That alone is worthy of .

7/28/2007 8:41:24 AM

^ This may come as a surprise to you, troll, but the other news outlets aren't covering this potentially important story--shocker! BTW, since you claim that virtually every thread I make is some sort of failure, where are all of your quality TSB threads? Are you adding anything to this message board other than shitty, ill-informed, radically left-wing comments? The answer is self-evident.

PS: I don't give a shit whether you like Fox News or not. "The howlers will howl."

7/28/2007 11:44:48 AM

For real though.

Pick up a copy of Scientific American. It has a big eye on the cover.

Then come back and we'll discuss it.

I'm almost attempted to scan and post some of the graphs, but I don't want to get TWW in trouble for it. Suffice it to say the models are very accurate nowadays, and they make it clear that the warming we're experiencing is not natural.

[Edited on July 28, 2007 at 2:53 PM. Reason : .]

7/28/2007 2:50:04 PM

^ assuming that they take into account all factors, the warming may be unnatural. of course, they rarely take into account major factors that don't help their case, so...

Quote :

"As for the second bit I am sure you posted the link from Faux News because they were the first on the scene foaming at the mouths to hail this Environmental Puppet Agency guy as some kind of victim. That alone is worthy of ."

Sorry, but the EPA guy was the one threatening to ruin someone else.

7/28/2007 4:03:17 PM

Hmm. I did read that oddly. I am left wondering what the EPA has to do with this other than defending skeptics. I guess it's that they are a member of ACORE but whoopty-fucking-doo.

7/28/2007 4:28:52 PM

for the record, I like to laugh at Fox And Friends in the morning as I am eating my breakfast (like saturday morning cartoons of old), and I happened to catch the blurb about the EPA guy when I turned my TV on after work.

7/28/2007 4:30:17 PM

The temperature sensors issue already came up in this thread before and was explained. It doesn't surprise me that hooksaw's pea-brain memory allowed him to forget it.

7/29/2007 10:35:37 AM

Quote :

"assuming that they take into account all factors, the warming may be unnatural. of course, they rarely take into account major factors that don't help their case, so..."

They took into account CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons, ozone, stratospheric water vapor from methane, surface albedo, aerosols, contrails, and solar energy.

They run a model of the earth minus human activity, and it's level. They add human activity to the model and *surprise* the model reflects climate observations.

I'm not really sure what else you want in a model.

7/29/2007 3:39:47 PM

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

http://www.surfacestations.org/

The images in these links speak for themselves.

7/30/2007 9:44:28 AM

very interesting...

i don't doubt that the world is getting warmer, the rate, the cause, and the 'fix' have yet to adequately be determined for me to get up on a horse and possibly make a fool out of myself.... (like a rather large portion of you guys have)

actually due to reduced particulate matter in the air fewer clouds are formed, which reflect less sun back into space, and produces less rain.

there is decent evidence that solar output has increased as well

[Edited on July 30, 2007 at 9:58 AM. Reason : f]

7/30/2007 9:55:47 AM

^Yeah

On another note...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=0371C79F-E7F2-99DF-36CF1E818E37536A&chanId=sa026

Seems pretty obvious to me. O3 is obviously rising and it's apparently doing quite a bit of damage on crops.

Quote :

"The researchers have predicted that increasing smog would prevent as much as 263 billion metric tons of carbon from being taken out of the atmosphere by plants over the past and coming century, though this depends on how tropical plants respond to O3 pollution. Studies have only been conducted on the effects of O3 on temperate plants thus far. "The CO2 fertilization of photosynthesis, which seems to be largely responsible for the global land carbon sink, could be heavily suppressed by O3 increases," Sitch notes, especially if tropical plants are as sensitive as temperate ones to smog. And that makes controlling O3 pollution from fossil fuel burning as important for climate change as it is for human and plant health."

Oh and hurricanes. Makes more sense than previous claims.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=study-blames-climate-chan

[Edited on July 30, 2007 at 10:10 AM. Reason : .]

7/30/2007 10:05:14 AM

and here we were worried about the ozone layer (on the upswing now)....

too much ozone!


on a diverent but related note, I'm still all for pollution controls and such, reduced dependency on fossil oil can only be a good thing, but we have to go about it very carefully....

green construction and buildings are also good.

[Edited on July 30, 2007 at 10:10 AM. Reason : s]

7/30/2007 10:08:11 AM

FFS hooksaw,

1. Wow. Like 9 stations out of 1221 are placed poorly (and really, I doubt many of their placements would have that big an impact on things).

2. Do you happen to have any pictures of AC units orbiting within a foot of the satellites verifying climate data?

7/30/2007 11:45:10 AM

9 stations huh? good thing you're not a math teacher cause there are almost 100 listed here http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

but why question the method of obtaining data...i mean the scientists clearly know everything and took that into account...hell why question anything, i mean global warming is obviously happening and its evil humans causing it...case closed...there is no debate

7/30/2007 12:30:54 PM

I was looking at this:

http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm


But please, continue to kick the "is the earth getting hotter?" horse. I bet there are some professors whom you totally spoke with who question that, too.

7/30/2007 12:56:23 PM

when THE FUCK have i ever questioned if the earth's temps had risen? learn who you are trolling you fucking worthless high school teaching piece of shit

but please continue acting like you know anything at all about science in general

you like to make fun of college science courses while you yourself teach high school history...know your role

7/30/2007 1:08:22 PM

Quote :

"THE FUCK have i ever questioned if the earth's temps had risen? "

You questioned scientist's methods of gathering the data, I assumed you were trying to make a point; I should have know better, though.

Quote :

"learn who you are trolling you fucking worthless high school teaching piece of shit"

Hahaha. I forgot, I was talking to the Blackberry tech /awe

7/30/2007 1:18:10 PM

Quote :

"You questioned scientist's methods of gathering the data, I assumed you were trying to make a point"

yeah the point was that many of those data collection sites have factors that influence the data...only someone who didn't know shit about science wouldnt question half-assed data collection methods

but you're a high school history teacher...go teach some 16 year olds to memorize some irrelevant names and dates and know your role

7/30/2007 1:23:21 PM

Go learn how to use firefox extensions.

Didn't they teach you that at the Wake Tech IT classes?

7/30/2007 1:25:39 PM

- i dont use firefox
- when you and retard #2 (the bald one) made your comments, i had already turned off java and reset IE
- you're late on that failed attempt at a diss
- this thread isnt for that...this is for science...that subject that you were too dumb to teach even at a high school level

7/30/2007 1:29:22 PM

so what does all this bullshit have to do with science?

you people need to grow the fuck up.

7/30/2007 1:30:37 PM

Before you continue to take pop-shots at my career, could you tell me how blackberry maintenance is any difference from HVAC repair? Or gun repair? Or any of those careers that Suzanne Somers can get you a degree in?

P.S. my scientific credentials aren't at issue here. It's you v. the scientific community.

[Edited on July 30, 2007 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2007 1:31:12 PM

quit trolling

7/30/2007 1:31:27 PM

Quote :

"They run a model of the earth minus human activity, and it's level"

Interesting, b/c that'd be the first time in the history of the Earth when things were at an equilibrium and not changing.

Satellite info only goes back 30 years, nowhere near enough to draw any conclusions.

7/30/2007 1:31:39 PM

^^^before you keep insinuating i went to wake tech and answer phone calls, why dont you try and make one single solitary intelligent comment about anything scientific since even your political pals know you're getting pwnt in every page about climate change

i mean fuck it took you probably 2 years to even understand certain terminology

Quote :

"Before you continue to take pop-shots at my career"

most people would consider that a temporary job until something better came along...not a career per se

7/30/2007 1:33:23 PM

^ How am I losing when all I'm doing is relaying scientific studies?

^^ What are you talking about? It'd be the first time temperature over a 100 year span was somewhat level? That's interesting.

And where do satellites come in? Are you arguing that temperature isn't rising?

^^^ So that's a "no," then?



[Edited on July 30, 2007 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2007 1:34:40 PM

just go back to making jokes about my job cause even though you're wrong, you sound smarter than when you attempt to discuss anything scientific

7/30/2007 1:37:07 PM

Could you explain where I'm wrong?

You know, other than trusting the Science-Illuminati Establishment?


PS- I need help cutting off java. Could you help?

[Edited on July 30, 2007 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2007 1:38:04 PM

man, i better not ever call disabling something "turning it off" cause a comp sci major might make a comment in jest and then you would quickly regurgitate it as if it were something that made fun of me

at least keep trolling in its proper threads...troll me in the chit chat thread...this thread is about climate change which you have proven time and time again that you know nothing about

7/30/2007 1:42:04 PM

But I read and accept scientific articles.

Then post their arguments on here.

Then you deny them, citing that professor that you totally talked to. Or that Canadian engineer.


So why am I in the wrong, here? And why to you keep pretending that science is this incredibly nebulous thing that only blackberry techs can understand? I have a fair understanding of the philosophy behind it-- enough of an understanding to realize that if I want to challenge researchers, I'd better have something more than some professor who I totally talked to that one time.

7/30/2007 2:01:55 PM

Quote :

"But I read and accept scientific articles. Then post their arguments on here."

I don't know how many scientific articles you read versus how many newspaper/online articles you read that summarize or highlight scientific articles...then you say you accept the scientific articles but post their arguments on here...seems more like you accept the newspaper/online articles as facts and argue the brief summation you've read as fact with the conviction of someone who actually knew the details of what he was discussing

Furthermore if you actually did have a fair understanding of the philosophy behind science you would understand the inherent skepticism that goes along with science...but you don't seem to understand that at all...I'm sure in some other subjects you can trust your textbook completely...this event happened in this year because the book says so...well science isn't like that...so you can try to downplay talking to actual PhDs for whatever reasons you want but high school history teachers making fun of PhD holding scientists is pretty hilarious...just tell yourself that its only 1 or 2 crazy people in the whole world who aren't completely convinced of anthro climate change and while you're at it keep telling yourself that you have a fair understanding of science

7/30/2007 4:21:53 PM

Skepticism needs to be informed to be legitimate.

If you want to be skeptical of researchers' findings, you need to be at least as informed as the researchers. We are not.

7/30/2007 6:17:57 PM