U.S. greenhouse gas emissions surged in 2007.
By on Dec 3rd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions surged in 2007.
According to a new release from the Energy Information Administration, “U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2007 were 1.4 percent above the 2006 total.” This increase erases the 1% drop in emissions in 2006, for which Bush claimed credit (even though the decrease was due to an unusually warm winter and high fuel prices). U.S. annual emissions are now 17% greater than they were in 1990. To avoid catastrophic climate change, the International Panel on Climate Change projects that “industrialized countries would need to reduce emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.”
UpdateClimate Progress's Joe Romm has more.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
AGAIN! Facts, facts, facts, those damn inconvenient facts:
1. There is no model for predicting future global temperatures that is repeatable and has an acceptable level of accuracy.
2. All the historical evidence so far shows that CO2 levels rise AFTER global temperatures rise, not before. In other words, they didn't cause the temperatures to rise.
3. Global temperature trends are FALLING, not rising.
Obviously, there's a lot more evidence out there that the hysteria surrounding catastrophic global "climate change" is just that - hysteria. It doesn't have sound, scientific underpinnings.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:17 pmA lot of you are probablt too young to remember the global COOLING scare of not that long ago.
It followed the same general track as the current hysteria and NO SURPRISE, it turned out that the earth didn't enter a new ice age!!!
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:19 pmTim, justify your statements. What source did you use? Do you have any clue to how the scientific process works? Do you understand what peer review is? Get back to us when you do a little REAL research.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:21 pmI heartily recommend the following book:
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition (Paperback)
by S. Fred Singer (Author), Dennis T. Avery (Author)
I also recommend: The Great Global Warming Swindle (DVD)
both are available on Amazon.com
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:21 pmA question for you true believers:
If rising levels of CO2 are supposedly to blame for rising temperatures and meting icecaps, then why is this happening at about the same time on MARS?
Funny, I don't think there are too many SUV's there...
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:23 pmAnd again. Tim, justify your statements. What source did you use? Do you have any clue to how the scientific process works? Do you understand what peer review is? Get back to us when you do a little REAL research.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:23 pmTim, bla bla bla
Justify your statements. What source did you use? Do you have any clue to how the scientific process works? Do you understand what peer review is? Get back to us when you do a little REAL research.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:24 pmLiberalVoter,
You may not have done as much reading and research as I have, that's all.
Try reading the papers written by CLIMATE scientists, or Climatologists if you prefer.
It is painfully clear that there is really NO scientific consensus on what the climate will do in the long term.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:24 pmAnd again. Tim, justify your statements. What source did you use? Do you have any clue to how the scientific process works? Do you understand what peer review is? Get back to us when you do a little REAL research.
Gee, this is fun. No wonder the trolls just post wildly!
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:25 pmLiberalVoter,
I'm not doing your homework for you, my friend.
You can start by reading what some of the REAL scientists who demanded their names be removed from the U.N. report said.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:26 pmYet again and again. Tim, justify your statements. What source did you use? Do you have any clue to how the scientific process works? Do you understand what peer review is? Get back to us when you do a little REAL research.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:26 pmLiberalVoter,
I gave one of my sources, you moron. Do you just like appearing like a broken record?
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pmTim, all you read is comic books. It means nothing. Justify your statements. What source did you use? Do you have any clue to how the scientific process works? Do you understand what peer review is? Get back to us when you do a little REAL research.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pmCutting and pasting the SAME post sure is impressive!
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pmTim, do you own homework. You are totally lazy and refuse to back ANY statement with real fact. Justify your statements. What source did you use? Do you have any clue to how the scientific process works? Do you understand what peer review is? Get back to us when you do a little REAL research.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:28 pmGlad it is impressive. Hopefully it is getting through the haze your are in. Justify your statements. What source did you use? Do you have any clue to how the scientific process works? Do you understand what peer review is? Get back to us when you do a little REAL research.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 pm“U.S. greenhouse gas emissions surged in 2007.”
- - The surge is working!!
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:30 pmHi Badmoodman. I think I have found the way to deal with TV. You have to keep repeating it until it finally penetrates his thick skull into his tiny brain. Post it a few more times.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:31 pmTim Vaculik Says:
You may not have done as much reading and research as I have, that’s all.
- - It's the Tom Cruise Scientology Lecture on Psychotherapy all over again.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:31 pmJust post some actual documentation Tim or STFU. It is tiresome to hear you talk about facts without actually providing any.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:34 pmI have an idea Tim. Why don't you get your pal Alz to lay down some shit than you can claim it is factual no matter how many bits of documented rebuttal evidences are offered? That seems like it would make you feel some sort of weird vindication of your inability to say anything other than oddball shit. Oh nevermind, I see you are already employing this strategy elsewhere.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:44 pmdbadass,
C'mon, man. You know that it would not matter WHAT I posted or WHAT evidence I linked! You know that.
I know this from much experience. True believers are immune to facts and evidence that contradicts their mindset.
Besides, this is an OPINION blog!
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:45 pmVaculik, Bla Bla Bla NO FACTS AGAIN...
Tim, justify your statements. What source did you use? Do you have any clue to how the scientific process works? Do you understand what peer review is? Get back to us when you do a little REAL research.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:46 pmTim Vaculik Says: I know this from much experience. True believers are immune to facts and evidence that contradicts their mindset.
- - Indeed.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:46 pmDbadass,
Actually, it was refreshing to read Alz's posts on the other thread. Being the lone voice gets ... lonely sometimes!
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:47 pmTim, ever wonder why you are the lone voice?
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:51 pmyour not a lone voice Tim. See to be a voice you have to be able to do more than just say things without being able to support them and effectively plan ahead to be able to anticipate and deliver effective defense of those ramblings. It is sort of like chess. Running right out with a screaming queen and no actual plan on what to do with her is the clear sign of a reckless amateur
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:51 pmWe won't know till you try it. listing books by global warming deniers isn't considered credible.......
ps. this is not considered credible either:
what in your feeble mind makes that a fact? Please justify your insolent attitude.
Just for shits and giggles why don't you explain why bush was so proud of his numbers on this issue in 06. If it's not real then why is he addressing it?
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 pmEven on an opinion blog you must be able to back up your opinion with rational, credible findings, especially when you preceed them with blather such as the following:
If they are facts then you should have no problem proving it. What's the holdup little fella?
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 pmTim, even if I stumbled on this thread and didn't have an opinion on the issue I would not be swayed to see things your way simply because you come off as an arrogant know it all that can't back up what you say.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 pmFred,
So you have read the book? I think not, otherwise you wouldn't make such an uninformed statement yourself.
In fact, the book is thoroughly researched and heavily referenced, or footnoted if you will.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 pmFred Says:
If they are facts then you should have no problem proving it. What’s the holdup little fella?
The only facts Timmah ever has are the ones he pulls from his big posterior region.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 pmFred,
Look, I'm just pointing out the obvious. Don't go look if you care not to.
I don't really care.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 pmAlright guys can you lay off on Tim Vaculik. I am working with him and although I admit he seems like a lost cause, I am confident that I can help to get him up to speed so as to be able to atleast not be lapped by the big boys. I am not claiming I can make him a winner but I am confident that a can really help him to atleast be less of an embarassment
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:05 pmTim.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:05 pmGet a job.
dbadass, thanks. He is all yours. Good luck and best wishes.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 pmWhat's really scary is the ease with which modern-day pied pipers get folks to follow them.
Take Al Gore for example. Here's a man who has absolutely no clue what he is talking about when it comes to climate science! His movie is so full on inaccuracies it was banned from classrooms!
And yet... by skillful manipulation and by using outright distortions he has been able to convince otherwise intelligent people of something that SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE!
Amazing, really. He's nothing more than a modern-day SNAKE OIL salesman.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:09 pmDamn Tim!
You are really making this hard. You play right into every checkmate. Never ever ever say something this stupid again
"Look, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Don’t go look if you care not to."
Obviously the rebuttal will be the request for where to go look which unless you can answer totally f ucks you. Dude I am happy to be your coach but you really have to try to listen and learn. Your killing us man!
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:09 pmdbadass,
All right, at #34 you are really crossing into obnoxious territory. I thought I disabused you of the notion that I am redeemable on a different thread!
I said it once, I'll say it again - I'm not here to polish my image!
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 pmDbadass,
You didn't catch that what I was referring to was a source of information - a book in this case - that is easily obtainable.
Actually, there are a lot of obvious examples of why the global climate hysteria is short on science and Loooong on emotional hype.
Google it!!!
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:15 pmTim Vaculik Says:
I know this from much experience. True believers are immune to facts and evidence that contradicts their mindset.
YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!!
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 pmShall we go back to the discussion of why you are here? If so can you please not be so foolish as to say anything absurd like to share all the facts and knowledge you have? If you wanna just say that you are into being an antagonist that has not much else to do, I will respect that. Just don't do that whole facts and truthy thing. Thanks
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 pmSo timmih, you contend that "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is not the work of a global warming denier? Really want to stick with that?
And you really wish to contend that a book titled "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" has anything whatsoever in the world to do with the possiblility that we might be accelerating the event?
You wish to discount without discussion or investigation even the possibility and you want us to take you seriously lieutenant flagg?
dbaddass....sorry, this punk has to go down.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:17 pm99% of scientists say we are experiencing global warming and that it is man-made. The other 1% are being paid by Heritage/Exxon to say "no we aren't". It's not really too difficult to figure out. Gee, why would Exxon want to say that?
Mars probably had SUVs a long time ago before they killed all life on the planet. :)
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:19 pm#40
Damn you are a slow learner. Being a life coach is so so tiring sometimes. You have to be able to provide actual info. I will admit you tried with your book but you also have to make sure that you can come up with sources which will not be immediately exposed as biased. I will still give you the scooby snack but you are clearly going to have to try harder if you genuinely wish to be a "voice"
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pmKeith!
Nice try with the obviously bogus numbers! GMAFB!
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 pmdbadass,
Perhaps you should start billing me for your services...
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:23 pmFred, right---these scientists know there has been global warming and global cooling for 400,000 years from studying ice cores in Greenland and Antartica. But they also have proof that what we are experiencing now is a greenhouse effect caused by manmade emmissions.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pmNice try with the obviously bogus numbers! GMAFB!
-----
Argh!
Tim did you read #38? Now you are gonna have to answer to how they are "obviously bogus". Do you even understand the basic rules of the game? Do I really have to treat you as the ultimate tabula rasa
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 pmdbadass,
Not that I care to justify anything, but I will tell you that I have plenty of worthwhile pursuits. Actually, I count blogging among them.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:27 pmTim your "Mars" example is weak. How about Uranus?
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:27 pmWhat possible holiday gift might I wish to buy at the totally lame and nobody gives a shit about nothingness which is the Privacy Center?
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pmlurker Says:
Tim your “Mars” example is weak. How about Uranus?
It's sore from overuse.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pmdbadass,
Have you ever taken statistics?
The numbers Keith made up were obviously bogus because he has no way of knowing the numbers of scientists on either side of the debate. Even I am not prone to making stuff up that egregiously...
Anyway, I think he was just trying to emphasize the conventional mindset, that's all. I just called him on it.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pmAl'sa vaclicker,
Try this as a beginning:
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm
Then begin reading the reports.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 pmActually Tim, I teach statistics.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:34 pmA couple years back, it was said that there was not one single peer-reviewed article denying there was global warming and that it was manmade---so that makes it 100% to 0%, not 99% to 1 %.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:36 pmThe numbers become irrelivant when you check each of your sources and find that they are funded by......wait for it.....big oil companies. They have to be removed from the formula because they taint the sample. If you had taken even one statistics class you would know that...
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:40 pmTim likes to expose himself I've decides. Why else would he come here and drop his pants and show his ass regularly.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 pmFrom sciencemag.org Dec. 2004:
The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by an@lyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate an@lysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
[*&^%$#! filter]
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:57 pmTo avoid catastrophic climate change, the International Panel on Climate Change projects that “the United States would need to reduce Republicans by 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.”
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:57 pmThe scientists in the debate reside in two camps. Scientific scientists, and "scientists" employed by the fossil fuel industry.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:05 pmThat is what happens when you have an administration with the duel goals of ruining the economy and the environment at the same time.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 pmFred,
That's a well-worn lie concerning the integrity of climatologists who disagree with the conventional wisdom about global warming. It's totally bogus.
So typical of the left. The tactic is to quash any difference of opinion by denigrating ANYONE that dares disagree.
Think about it for a minute. The very NATURE of science is to foster and explore DIFFERENT opinions and hypotheses!
ANYONE who says the debate is "over" concerning global warming, and in particular man's role in affecting the climate is simply engaging in demagoguery of the worst kind!
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 pmTim my man might I refer you to number 20?
Hey ralph, can I get a little tag ala Fuji and Tanaka?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 pmTimmeh, can you explain why virtually every global warming denier also turns out to be a partisan right-winger?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pmWow.
Seriously?
Timmeh appears dead set on proving that "Vacuous" is more than just an apt nickname.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 pmNot only are these so-called scientists partisan right-wingers, they can all be traced back to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Check out the supporters of that organization some time.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 pmThanks ralph...
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 pmHey, db, thanks for the invite. I can't believe I was missing all this fun!
I was wondering why Timmeh wasn't defending his BFF John Bolton, and he was here denying climate science the whole time!
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Fred,
That’s a well-worn lie concerning the integrity of climatologists who disagree with the conventional wisdom about global warming. It’s totally bogus.
So typical of the left. The tactic is to quash any difference of opinion by denigrating ANYONE that dares disagree.
Think about it for a minute. The very NATURE of science is to foster and explore DIFFERENT opinions and hypotheses!
ANYONE who says the debate is “over” concerning global warming, and in particular man’s role in affecting the climate is simply engaging in demagoguery of the worst kind!
What a BUNCH OF CRAP! The OPPONENTS are FREE to PROVE their opinions with SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. Unfortunately there ISN'T ANY, and what gets PUT FORTH is quickly DECONSTRUCTED in PEER REVIEW as being UNSCIENTIFIC! The DEBATE is over from a SCIENTIFIC platform, however the POLITICAL DEBATE based on RHETORIC and IGNORANCE as YOU PORTRAY will always continue, just like when you TARDS argue the EARTH is 8000 years old. You don't CARE about PROOF, SCIENCE or EVEN REALITY because it UNDERMINES YOUR PERSONAL DELUSION! Nutjob!
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 pmThanks for linking to IPCC, Keith. Not that Troll Vacuous would dream of reading any of it.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 pmAll right, here ya go. The following is a URL link to an open letter sent to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali on Dec. 13, 2007. It was sent by 100 scientists.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/un-signatories.html
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 pmUh-oh... Timmeh's done it now. RHF is here, and I'll bet he's packing some ROTFLs.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 pmRalph at #66,
See my latest post...
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 pmTimmeh, how does your latest emission answer my question?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 pmrepublicans hate facts,
Actually, just the converse is true. It is the proponents of global warming that are having terrible issues with the science.
There are numerous examples, so take your pick.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 pmI hate to be picky, but I think they believe the Earth is only 6500 years old. It has something to do with the lifespan of old Jews.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 pmWow, a letter. Signed by 100 scientists.
So?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 pmI'll say it again and any of you are free to link me to something that proves me wrong on this:
There exists NO repeatable, accurate, scientific model that can actually predict what the climate will do in the future!
There's a lot of conjecture, hypotheses, etc., but NO solid science in this regard. By this I mean that for every hypothesis stating that catastrophic global climate change is definitely going to happen there's sober, credible, scientific dissent and hypotheses that say just the opposite!
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 pm#74 rules the day!
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 pmHere ya go, Vacuous.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 pmDeltoid is an excellent blog which debunks global warming deniars, like our friend Tim, who seems very worked up today:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
And a lovely clip:
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:02 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WugcAuQMP1s
Yeah, I know. Putting up the link won't make a difference to the troll, cuz he's a true believer.
But I thought it might be fun.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 pmThanks for the link Perry Logan.
Oh look, one of the letter signers has top billing -- as an idiot.
Surprised? I think not.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:04 pmZooey,
That's where you are DEAD wrong. I am not a "believer", rather I'm a skeptic.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 pmDecember 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Nuh-uh. You're wrong, Vacuous.
See? It's true cuz I wrote it.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 pmI'm not really a climatologist, but I did stay at a Competitive Enterprise In. Express last night.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 pmTim In order to be a skeptic you first have to have a voice. Now as to the voice issue, I suggest we review # 27. I am still there for you to offer my coaching but right now I think you are being well schooled by others.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 pmI think Vacuous peed his pants -- AGAIN -- and his mom came and got him.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 pmdbadass,
You have lost me know. What the hell are you talking about - a "voice".
Nonsense.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 pmdbadass,
I meant to say "now", but you get the picture.
I need your coaching like I need another ...
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm**snort**
This stuff just writes itself... :-D
Later, all.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pmDbadass,
Just fill in the blanks, there junior...
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 pmWow. This is as stupid as defense as I've ever encountered in this debate. How does one know what accurately predicts the future until the future arrives?
Jeez, Timmeh. I know you're expending a lot of energy waving your arms around, but all you seem to be accomplishing is knocking your mom's Hummel figurines off the shelves.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 pmTim Vaculik:
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 pmI have no idea about that junior thing and feel free to clue me in but might I point out to you again that the d is lowercase?
Wow Tim, and I thought I was drunk!
How much do you wingnuts drink anyway? I thought I drank a lot, but you people must be snockered out of your minds all the time!
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:31 pmI agree, the oil company scientists are bogus.....
timmy don't you ever get tired of losing every argument?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:33 pmtim, explain why scientists who work for oil companies would not be biased towards the oil companies best interest. Remember where their check comes from.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Zooey,
That’s where you are DEAD wrong. I am not a “believer”, rather I’m a skeptic.
No, you are an IGNORANT MORON. When SKEPTICS LIKE YOU start DOING SCIENCE that DISPROVES THE CONSENSUS ACCEPTED REALITY, then you'll NOT be one. Until then, you're just ANOTHER FLAT EARTH MORON that's SKEPTICAL that the EARTH IS ROUND. Your SKEPTICISM is UNFOUNDED and IGNORANT.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:37 pmTim Vaculik Says:
republicans hate facts,
Actually, just the converse is true. It is the proponents of global warming that are having terrible issues with the science.
There are numerous examples, so take your pick.
ROTFL, what ANOTHER IGNORANT STATEMENT! If there are SO MANY, name ONE that HASN'T ALREADY BEEN DEBUNKED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY? Name ONE STUDY that SHOWS CLIMATE CHANGE isn't MOSTLY MAN MADE? I'll give you a HINT TARD, this SITE will HELP YOU EDUCATE YOURSELF if you aren't TOO LAZY and ILLITERATE to USE IT!
http://realclimate.org
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 pmWell this sure could be a fun game....
"I need your coaching like I need another …
testicle"?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 pmI need your coaching like I need another …
white trash punk ass son who can't hold down a job?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:42 pmFred,
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 pmCut him a break. Apparently, to remain a Republican these days, in the face of all the disasters they have brought upon our country, people like tim must get completely drunk before going public with the tattered remains of their discredited ideology.
tim, don't get the wrong idea, I'm just pointing out the obvious. You don't seem to be able to hold your own with anyone here so far. It would help if you had a leg to stand on I guess.
You know they have a name for people who say they are right and everyone else is wrong......might behoove you to reflect on that tonight before you put your G.I. Joes to bed.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 pmTim Vaculik Says:
I’ll say it again and any of you are free to link me to something that proves me wrong on this:
There exists NO repeatable, accurate, scientific model that can actually predict what the climate will do in the future!
There’s a lot of conjecture, hypotheses, etc., but NO solid science in this regard. By this I mean that for every hypothesis stating that catastrophic global climate change is definitely going to happen there’s sober, credible, scientific dissent and hypotheses that say just the opposite!
Typical REPUBLICAN TARD. When you're DESTROYED on ONE ARGUMENT you BRING UP ANOTHER or an IRRELEVANT point. Climate models like ALL MODELS are based on DATA (it's science TARD so I don't think you'd understand). The more the data, the more accuracy of the predictiveness the models are. Accuracy is based on the input data and the models themselves, both of which are peer reviewed. The data is also assessed from a mathematical / statistical deviation and this is incorporated into the prediction. This is why the PREDICTION MODELS list PROBABILITIES. Meaning that YOUR CONJECTURE on the VALUE OF MODELS is as IRRELEVANT and UNSCIENTIFIC as the rest of the ANTI-WARMING WINGNUT RHETORIC. Grow up CHILD. Learn WHAT SCIENCE IS before you TRY TO DEBATE IT. You aren't a SKEPTIC, you're a BABY!
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 pmI need your coaching like I need another …
one of them there all beef patties with that there special sauce?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 pmBrain cell that has enough oxygen..
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 pmcourse in statistics....
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:48 pmThe problem with "Skeptics" like Timmeh is they can't distinguish the difference between FACT and OPINION they are SO USED to getting their NEWS from OPINION COLUMNISTS! They also don't understand the difference between an OPINION that's SCIENTIFICALLY BASED AND PROVEN from one that's merely SKEPTICAL and REFUSES TO BELIEVE THE SCIENCE. The FIRST is REALITY BASED RATIONAL THINKING the SECOND is RELIGIOUS BASED INSANITY!
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 pmpair of jackboots, monacle and riding crop....
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 pmbow tie...
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 pmYeah, but scientists who work for universities could be biased toward saying that the girls on their particular campuses are causing global warming by being very hot. They remember where their lays may come from.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:52 pmTimmeh if you WANT A TUTORIAL on CLIMATE MODELS I suggest you READ HERE before you CONTINUE TO EMBARRASS YOURSELF with the COMPLETE AND UTTER IGNORANCE YOU CONSISTENTLY SHOW!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/#more-527
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:52 pmFred.
I really must be moving on but do you notice that once again my little grasshopper has failed to think ahead as to the consequences of the things he says. I am unsure as to how to ween him of this as it seems quite deliberate. Even a complete fool could have anticipated the outcome of posing the just fill in the blanks comment.
goodnight and best-
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:52 pmback at ya dbadass. I can't explain it either, he actually spurned your sage advise and I just can't say how troubling that is. You can't help people who won't help themselves but you get awards for trying.......good evening my progressive friend.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 pmralph,
At #97. How do you think a model can be verified? You put in KNOWN data and see what the model produces!
In this case, a model to be useful would be fed accurate data to see if it can predict conditions that have already occurred.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 pmshoeless,
Well, I've only had two beers, but I've decided to have a half a glass of wine to calm my nerves before I retire!
December 4th, 2008 at 12:01 amdbadass,
Hey, the game is kinda funny! Sorry about the mis-spelling of your moniker...
December 4th, 2008 at 12:03 amMy goodness, I learned in 8th grade science class that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, when we learned about the atmosphere of Venus.
Maybe it was flu season and a lot of kids missed that lesson. I guess that is how Republicans are formed.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:03 amRHF,
You must be a student of EugeneDebs.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:08 amIt's called the carbon cycle.
God,
December 4th, 2008 at 12:09 amI've never prayed before, but now I feel the need. Please come and take these dumbass wingnut Republicans away before they destroy your creation.
Thank You
If CO2 had no effect on surface temperature of a planet, the average surface temperature on Venus would be 117 degrees F based on the average surface temperature on Earth of 68 degrees F. The two figures factor in the root mean square of their relative distances from the Sun. However the average surface temperature on Venus is 894 degrees F.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:12 amYou can take that and shove it up Uranus.
Walt,
Don't you get it?
There are no Hummers on Venus, therefor Hummers have no effect on Earth.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:19 amShoeless,
December 4th, 2008 at 12:24 amI meant that for Tim V., not you.
I only comment when the thread gets totally asinine.
I'm sorry. I accused you of being drunk, when it turns out that you are just stupid.
My bad.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:25 amI know Walt
December 4th, 2008 at 12:27 amshoeless,
December 4th, 2008 at 12:33 amTim has apparently passed out on his second beer. Since I am an old fart, I am going to hit the sack, it's 12:33 AM here. Sweet dreams whenever you hit the sack as well.
Yep, our work is done here. The morons who slept in the back row of 8th grade science class are easily fooled, and are now too propagandized to be educated.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:44 amSure but I tired em out for ya...
December 4th, 2008 at 12:45 amThe debate is "not over" concerning the age of the universe, either. One side (using what makes them feel good) says it is about 6500 years old. The other side (using science) says it is about 13.75 billion years old. The debate goes on.
Some conservatives swear (today 2008) that the earth is fixed in the heavens and everything else revolves around the earth. I have also had someone tell me that the stars are not suns, but extremely smaller. She was a bright person and about 40 years old, but conservative.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:22 amLet's cut to the chase. Was she really cute?
December 4th, 2008 at 1:23 amMore pollution for a lesser sound economy... arrest Bush!
December 4th, 2008 at 1:38 amdbadass, yeah she was. We were looking at the stars and I said it was amazing to think they were like our sun. She said "don't be stupid, stars are nothing like our sun, they are really small".
December 4th, 2008 at 2:08 amTim,
When you say the Earth is cooling, then how exactly do you explain the rising temperatures?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
and more information here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Maybe you have some different definition of "cooling" than what is in Webster's. Or, maybe you are just full of BS!
You see, unlike you, I am presenting actual scientific data. All you have are books from climate deniers that actual scientists say are full of false information. If you've really done as much research as you claim, then you probably already know that most of these climate deniers are sponsored by the oil and coal industries.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:31 amLet's not forget that 2007 was an election year as well.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:05 amHey, TP. Thanks for leaving my post at 132 moderating into complete irrelevancy...
December 4th, 2008 at 10:14 amTim Vaculik heartily recommend the following book:
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition (Paperback)
by S. Fred Singer (Author), Dennis T. Avery (Author)
The authors, S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery are not impartial scientists, but rather paid hacks who have a long history of denying science for the benefit of corporate interests. Mr. Singer has gone on record as promoting skepticism regarding the connections between second hand smoke and lung cancer as well as CFCs and ozone depletion and DDT and environmental harm. All of which has since been confirmed. Avery is infamous for his 1998 claim in the Wall Street Journal that the Center for Disease Control had conducted studies showing that eating an organic diet carried 8-times the risk of E. coli infection than eating a conventional diet. The CDC had never conducted any such testing.
It's also important to note that The Heartland Institute of Chicago has taken a very active role in promoting that book. The Heartland Institute of Chicago is a think tank in Chicago that has accepted nearly a 3 quarters of a million dollars from ExxonMobile over the past few years and currently refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are.
Spread your lies elsewhere, Tim Vaculik.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:57 pm