Copenhagen-Global Warming Conference

[Hobbes]

If there are more hurricanes than usual - Global Warming.

If there are fewer hurricanes than usual -Global Warming.

If glaciers are shrinking - Global Warming.

If glaciers are expanding -Global Warming.

Record heat -Global Warming.

Record cold -Global Warming.

Floods - Global Warming.

Drought - Global Warming.

Thick tree rings - Global Warming.

Thin tree rings - Global Warming.

If the infallible IPCC Weather Indicator is missing, some climate scientist must have deleted it.

Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Instability = Greenhoax Effect.

Y2Kyoto: Climate Instability Just Around The Corner

I picked up on something said during a television interview at Copenhagen last week, and both my gut and my search engine tell me the language of the UN's great socialist money-sucking scheme is evolving once again.

Just as "global warming" was pushed into an inconveniently cold and bitter night, "climate change" may be readying its last will and testament.

"Climate change" was always a weak substitute for "global warming", because it was always so easy to rebut. As even the experts were forced to concede, the climate is always changing and has since long before man discovered spark plugs.

This new terminology is more clever, for it neatly avoids the shortcomings of its clumsy forebears. It requires neither warming, nor change. Just television.

When blizzards descend on scientists and world leaders from Copenhagen to East Anglia to Washington, they warmists can now claim ownership.

When hurricane forecasts fall short of the mark, the propagandists can cite their very failure to support their scheme.

Warm winters, cold winters, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, growing ice caps, melting ice caps - directions won't matter. Every "new" temperature record, every seasonal flood, every California hot spell, every dusting of snow in the south of France - in other words, local weather, reported globally, will return full force as evidence of anthropogenic climate crime, as it did in a simpler time when the ice conditions of a canal in Ottawa led to nationwide panic.

So, get ready to welcome the new talking point on the block: "climate instability".

Welcome tin-foil-hat wearer! We have however moved on even though the politicians in Copenhagen have not.

Just a small pointer though...do not confuse what the actual scientist are saying with what the media are putting out there every day. As surprising as this may come to you put these are not the same things.

A warm, fuzzy and conspiracy-free Christmas to you as well then.

8)

you must talking about actual scientists like the IPCC chief warm-monger Rajendra K. Pachauri. Oh wait a minute, he's a railroad engineer.

I will have a nice Christmas thank you very much but it won't be warm.

It;s freezing here, must be climate instability.

Merry Christmas

Again, your half-truths and innuendo won't convince anyone here. :roll:

Dr. R.K. Pachauri started his career at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. You and others may have wished he'd stayed there for the rest of his professional life but as it stands he's moved on to gain a PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics from North Carolina State University.

So, unlike your little jibe is suggesting this man has worked for most of his career in the fields of energy resources and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, publishing 21 books, papers and articles. That does make him kinda qualified to do what he does as head of the IPCC.

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri biography

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri Wikipedia

By the way, I'm too just a lowly engineer yet I don't have any problems comprehending the research published on AGW. Then again I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat...

:roll:

[eagle]

I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat...

The tin foil keep out alien sound that waves effect thought patterns. If you chew it you begin to pick up alien radio stations which is why the weird faces it causes you to make. Don't they teach ya nothin at engineerin school ?

[warren]

If there are more hurricanes than usual - Global Warming.

If there are fewer hurricanes than usual -Global Warming.

If glaciers are shrinking - Global Warming.

If glaciers are expanding -Global Warming.

Record heat -Global Warming.

Record cold -Global Warming.

Floods - Global Warming.

Drought - Global Warming.

Thick tree rings - Global Warming.

Thin tree rings - Global Warming.

If the infallible IPCC Weather Indicator is missing, some climate scientist must have deleted it.

Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Instability = Greenhoax Effect.

Y2Kyoto: Climate Instability Just Around The Corner

I picked up on something said during a television interview at Copenhagen last week, and both my gut and my search engine tell me the language of the UN's great socialist money-sucking scheme is evolving once again.

Just as "global warming" was pushed into an inconveniently cold and bitter night, "climate change" may be readying its last will and testament.

"Climate change" was always a weak substitute for "global warming", because it was always so easy to rebut. As even the experts were forced to concede, the climate is always changing and has since long before man discovered spark plugs.

This new terminology is more clever, for it neatly avoids the shortcomings of its clumsy forebears. It requires neither warming, nor change. Just television.

When blizzards descend on scientists and world leaders from Copenhagen to East Anglia to Washington, they warmists can now claim ownership.

When hurricane forecasts fall short of the mark, the propagandists can cite their very failure to support their scheme.

Warm winters, cold winters, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, growing ice caps, melting ice caps - directions won't matter. Every "new" temperature record, every seasonal flood, every California hot spell, every dusting of snow in the south of France - in other words, local weather, reported globally, will return full force as evidence of anthropogenic climate crime, as it did in a simpler time when the ice conditions of a canal in Ottawa led to nationwide panic.

So, get ready to welcome the new talking point on the block: "climate instability".

Welcome tin-foil-hat wearer! We have however moved on even though the politicians in Copenhagen have not.

Just a small pointer though...do not confuse what the actual scientist are saying with what the media are putting out there every day. As surprising as this may come to you put these are not the same things.

A warm, fuzzy and conspiracy-free Christmas to you as well then.

8)

you must talking about actual scientists like the IPCC chief warm-monger Rajendra K. Pachauri. Oh wait a minute, he's a railroad engineer.

I will have a nice Christmas thank you very much but it won't be warm.

It;s freezing here, must be climate instability.

Merry Christmas

Again, your half-truths and innuendo won't convince anyone here. :roll:

Dr. R.K. Pachauri started his career at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. You and others may have wished he'd stayed there for the rest of his professional life but as it stands he's moved on to gain a PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics from North Carolina State University.

So, unlike your little jibe is suggesting this man has worked for most of his career in the fields of energy resources and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, publishing 21 books, papers and articles. That does make him kinda qualified to do what he does as head of the IPCC.

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri biography

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri Wikipedia

By the way, I'm too just a lowly engineer yet I don't have any problems comprehending the research published on AGW. Then again I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat...

:roll:

half-truths and innuendo: sounds like the climatic research unit at Britain's University of East Anglia.(climategate) they just fudged the numbers and cherry picked data to show a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But why worry? their not industrial engineers, their just scientists

Advocacy and the science of Global warming are in bed together and both are having a really good time.

[Hobbes]

If there are more hurricanes than usual - Global Warming.

If there are fewer hurricanes than usual -Global Warming.

If glaciers are shrinking - Global Warming.

If glaciers are expanding -Global Warming.

Record heat -Global Warming.

Record cold -Global Warming.

Floods - Global Warming.

Drought - Global Warming.

Thick tree rings - Global Warming.

Thin tree rings - Global Warming.

If the infallible IPCC Weather Indicator is missing, some climate scientist must have deleted it.

Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Instability = Greenhoax Effect.

Y2Kyoto: Climate Instability Just Around The Corner

I picked up on something said during a television interview at Copenhagen last week, and both my gut and my search engine tell me the language of the UN's great socialist money-sucking scheme is evolving once again.

Just as "global warming" was pushed into an inconveniently cold and bitter night, "climate change" may be readying its last will and testament.

"Climate change" was always a weak substitute for "global warming", because it was always so easy to rebut. As even the experts were forced to concede, the climate is always changing and has since long before man discovered spark plugs.

This new terminology is more clever, for it neatly avoids the shortcomings of its clumsy forebears. It requires neither warming, nor change. Just television.

When blizzards descend on scientists and world leaders from Copenhagen to East Anglia to Washington, they warmists can now claim ownership.

When hurricane forecasts fall short of the mark, the propagandists can cite their very failure to support their scheme.

Warm winters, cold winters, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, growing ice caps, melting ice caps - directions won't matter. Every "new" temperature record, every seasonal flood, every California hot spell, every dusting of snow in the south of France - in other words, local weather, reported globally, will return full force as evidence of anthropogenic climate crime, as it did in a simpler time when the ice conditions of a canal in Ottawa led to nationwide panic.

So, get ready to welcome the new talking point on the block: "climate instability".

Welcome tin-foil-hat wearer! We have however moved on even though the politicians in Copenhagen have not.

Just a small pointer though...do not confuse what the actual scientist are saying with what the media are putting out there every day. As surprising as this may come to you put these are not the same things.

A warm, fuzzy and conspiracy-free Christmas to you as well then.

8)

you must talking about actual scientists like the IPCC chief warm-monger Rajendra K. Pachauri. Oh wait a minute, he's a railroad engineer.

I will have a nice Christmas thank you very much but it won't be warm.

It;s freezing here, must be climate instability.

Merry Christmas

Again, your half-truths and innuendo won't convince anyone here. :roll:

Dr. R.K. Pachauri started his career at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. You and others may have wished he'd stayed there for the rest of his professional life but as it stands he's moved on to gain a PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics from North Carolina State University.

So, unlike your little jibe is suggesting this man has worked for most of his career in the fields of energy resources and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, publishing 21 books, papers and articles. That does make him kinda qualified to do what he does as head of the IPCC.

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri biography

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri Wikipedia

By the way, I'm too just a lowly engineer yet I don't have any problems comprehending the research published on AGW. Then again I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat...

:roll:

half-truths and innuendo: sounds like the climatic research unit at Britain's University of East Anglia.(climategate) they just fudged the numbers and cherry picked data to show a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But why worry? their not industrial engineers, their just scientists

Advocacy and the science of Global warming are in bed together and both are having a really good time.

You really have no glue have you? Care to provide some evidence towards your wild accusations?

There is no such thing as a 'Climate Gate', it's a non-story about stolen private correspondence being selectively quoted out of context. I doubt that CRU has fudged it's numbers for the simple reason that many other researchers have independently arrived at the same conclusions and because the peer review process would discover manipulation. But hey, of course thousands of scientist are just out to put the evil oil industry out of business... :roll:

The 'Hockey Stick' is not illusory as even the US Academy of Science acknowledged when tasked at looking at the validity and methodology of the 'Hockey Stick'.

Dude, just don't take off that hat of yours... :roll:

[warren]

If there are more hurricanes than usual - Global Warming.

If there are fewer hurricanes than usual -Global Warming.

If glaciers are shrinking - Global Warming.

If glaciers are expanding -Global Warming.

Record heat -Global Warming.

Record cold -Global Warming.

Floods - Global Warming.

Drought - Global Warming.

Thick tree rings - Global Warming.

Thin tree rings - Global Warming.

If the infallible IPCC Weather Indicator is missing, some climate scientist must have deleted it.

Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Instability = Greenhoax Effect.

Y2Kyoto: Climate Instability Just Around The Corner

I picked up on something said during a television interview at Copenhagen last week, and both my gut and my search engine tell me the language of the UN's great socialist money-sucking scheme is evolving once again.

Just as "global warming" was pushed into an inconveniently cold and bitter night, "climate change" may be readying its last will and testament.

"Climate change" was always a weak substitute for "global warming", because it was always so easy to rebut. As even the experts were forced to concede, the climate is always changing and has since long before man discovered spark plugs.

This new terminology is more clever, for it neatly avoids the shortcomings of its clumsy forebears. It requires neither warming, nor change. Just television.

When blizzards descend on scientists and world leaders from Copenhagen to East Anglia to Washington, they warmists can now claim ownership.

When hurricane forecasts fall short of the mark, the propagandists can cite their very failure to support their scheme.

Warm winters, cold winters, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, growing ice caps, melting ice caps - directions won't matter. Every "new" temperature record, every seasonal flood, every California hot spell, every dusting of snow in the south of France - in other words, local weather, reported globally, will return full force as evidence of anthropogenic climate crime, as it did in a simpler time when the ice conditions of a canal in Ottawa led to nationwide panic.

So, get ready to welcome the new talking point on the block: "climate instability".

Welcome tin-foil-hat wearer! We have however moved on even though the politicians in Copenhagen have not.

Just a small pointer though...do not confuse what the actual scientist are saying with what the media are putting out there every day. As surprising as this may come to you put these are not the same things.

A warm, fuzzy and conspiracy-free Christmas to you as well then.

8)

you must talking about actual scientists like the IPCC chief warm-monger Rajendra K. Pachauri. Oh wait a minute, he's a railroad engineer.

I will have a nice Christmas thank you very much but it won't be warm.

It;s freezing here, must be climate instability.

Merry Christmas

Again, your half-truths and innuendo won't convince anyone here. :roll:

Dr. R.K. Pachauri started his career at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. You and others may have wished he'd stayed there for the rest of his professional life but as it stands he's moved on to gain a PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics from North Carolina State University.

So, unlike your little jibe is suggesting this man has worked for most of his career in the fields of energy resources and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, publishing 21 books, papers and articles. That does make him kinda qualified to do what he does as head of the IPCC.

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri biography

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri Wikipedia

By the way, I'm too just a lowly engineer yet I don't have any problems comprehending the research published on AGW. Then again I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat...

:roll:

half-truths and innuendo: sounds like the climatic research unit at Britain's University of East Anglia.(climategate) they just fudged the numbers and cherry picked data to show a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But why worry? their not industrial engineers, their just scientists

Advocacy and the science of Global warming are in bed together and both are having a really good time.

You really have no glue have you? Care to provide some evidence towards your wild accusations?

There is no such thing as a 'Climate Gate', it's a non-story about stolen private correspondence being selectively quoted out of context. I doubt that CRU has fudged it's numbers for the simple reason that many other researchers have independently arrived at the same conclusions and because the peer review process would discover manipulation. But hey, of course thousands of scientist are just out to put the evil oil industry out of business... :roll:

The 'Hockey Stick' is not illusory as even the US Academy of Science acknowledged when tasked at looking at the validity and methodology of the 'Hockey Stick'.

Dude, just don't take off that hat of yours... :roll:

The CRU has it's own definition of "peer review"

Australian journalist Andrew Bolt has a good overview of the story, with a selection of incriminating e-mails that have already been discovered in the hacked data. Note that these e-mails reveal more than just what it going on at the CRU, since they involve numerous leading British and American climate scientists outside of the CRU.

These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.

More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.

Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.

This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.

I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.

And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report.

The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma.

For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

"There is no such thing as a 'Climate Gate', it's a non-story about stolen private correspondence being selectively quoted out of context."

I don't think any reasonable impartial person would characterize this as a "non-story"

"You really have no glue have you?"

It's one thing to call me a tin- foil hat wearer but when you accuse me of having no glue you've really hit rock bottom. How dare you?

Not surprising though, false accusations are par for the course in the warm-mongering camp.Actually I have some glue, just enough to glue an Al Gore picture on your new hat.

:roll:

[eagle]

Not me, I think there is plenty of Glue :shock:

[Hobbes]

If there are more hurricanes than usual - Global Warming.

If there are fewer hurricanes than usual -Global Warming.

If glaciers are shrinking - Global Warming.

If glaciers are expanding -Global Warming.

Record heat -Global Warming.

Record cold -Global Warming.

Floods - Global Warming.

Drought - Global Warming.

Thick tree rings - Global Warming.

Thin tree rings - Global Warming.

If the infallible IPCC Weather Indicator is missing, some climate scientist must have deleted it.

Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Instability = Greenhoax Effect.

Y2Kyoto: Climate Instability Just Around The Corner

I picked up on something said during a television interview at Copenhagen last week, and both my gut and my search engine tell me the language of the UN's great socialist money-sucking scheme is evolving once again.

Just as "global warming" was pushed into an inconveniently cold and bitter night, "climate change" may be readying its last will and testament.

"Climate change" was always a weak substitute for "global warming", because it was always so easy to rebut. As even the experts were forced to concede, the climate is always changing and has since long before man discovered spark plugs.

This new terminology is more clever, for it neatly avoids the shortcomings of its clumsy forebears. It requires neither warming, nor change. Just television.

When blizzards descend on scientists and world leaders from Copenhagen to East Anglia to Washington, they warmists can now claim ownership.

When hurricane forecasts fall short of the mark, the propagandists can cite their very failure to support their scheme.

Warm winters, cold winters, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, growing ice caps, melting ice caps - directions won't matter. Every "new" temperature record, every seasonal flood, every California hot spell, every dusting of snow in the south of France - in other words, local weather, reported globally, will return full force as evidence of anthropogenic climate crime, as it did in a simpler time when the ice conditions of a canal in Ottawa led to nationwide panic.

So, get ready to welcome the new talking point on the block: "climate instability".

Welcome tin-foil-hat wearer! We have however moved on even though the politicians in Copenhagen have not.

Just a small pointer though...do not confuse what the actual scientist are saying with what the media are putting out there every day. As surprising as this may come to you put these are not the same things.

A warm, fuzzy and conspiracy-free Christmas to you as well then.

8)

you must talking about actual scientists like the IPCC chief warm-monger Rajendra K. Pachauri. Oh wait a minute, he's a railroad engineer.

I will have a nice Christmas thank you very much but it won't be warm.

It;s freezing here, must be climate instability.

Merry Christmas

Again, your half-truths and innuendo won't convince anyone here. :roll:

Dr. R.K. Pachauri started his career at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. You and others may have wished he'd stayed there for the rest of his professional life but as it stands he's moved on to gain a PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics from North Carolina State University.

So, unlike your little jibe is suggesting this man has worked for most of his career in the fields of energy resources and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, publishing 21 books, papers and articles. That does make him kinda qualified to do what he does as head of the IPCC.

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri biography

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri Wikipedia

By the way, I'm too just a lowly engineer yet I don't have any problems comprehending the research published on AGW. Then again I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat...

:roll:

half-truths and innuendo: sounds like the climatic research unit at Britain's University of East Anglia.(climategate) they just fudged the numbers and cherry picked data to show a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But why worry? their not industrial engineers, their just scientists

Advocacy and the science of Global warming are in bed together and both are having a really good time.

You really have no glue have you? Care to provide some evidence towards your wild accusations?

There is no such thing as a 'Climate Gate', it's a non-story about stolen private correspondence being selectively quoted out of context. I doubt that CRU has fudged it's numbers for the simple reason that many other researchers have independently arrived at the same conclusions and because the peer review process would discover manipulation. But hey, of course thousands of scientist are just out to put the evil oil industry out of business... :roll:

The 'Hockey Stick' is not illusory as even the US Academy of Science acknowledged when tasked at looking at the validity and methodology of the 'Hockey Stick'.

Dude, just don't take off that hat of yours... :roll:

The CRU has it's own definition of "peer review"

Australian journalist Andrew Bolt has a good overview of the story, with a selection of incriminating e-mails that have already been discovered in the hacked data. Note that these e-mails reveal more than just what it going on at the CRU, since they involve numerous leading British and American climate scientists outside of the CRU.

These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.

More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.

Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.

This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.

I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.

And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report.

The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma.

For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

"There is no such thing as a 'Climate Gate', it's a non-story about stolen private correspondence being selectively quoted out of context."

I don't think any reasonable impartial person would characterize this as a "non-story"

"You really have no glue have you?"

It's one thing to call me a tin- foil hat wearer but when you accuse me of having no glue you've really hit rock bottom. How dare you?

Not surprising though, false accusations are par for the course in the warm-mongering camp.Actually I have some glue, just enough to glue an Al Gore picture on your new hat.

:roll:

Oh dear me... :roll: fraud, scandal of the century, criminal act...just that there is none of that, however much you would wish for it, Santa ain't gonna deliver on this one. :roll:

But here is a suggestion. Before calling something "bogus scientific research", why don't you and your climate-change-sceptic pals take the raw data and put them into a model of your own, which according to your conviction would obviously show no warming and then publish this research in a peer reviewed journal (you can even opt for the Climate Research Journal since it's a bit easier to publish in there if you are scared of other peer reviewed publications). Coincidently the money you and your pals would make courtesy of oil and gas corporations would make the 13.7 Million in grants to the CRU look like peanuts.

You see young tin-foil-hat wearing padawan, rather than trying to make up some story where there is none if you were really, really, really sure that AGW has no merrit and would not withstand scientific scrutiny you can settle this once for all by making a scientific argument to the contrary. There is no such thing as a dogma in science and as much as people on the outside would want to portray it there just is nothing religious about it either. You can (and many a scientist does) challenge anything in the realm of science as long as you have some data supporting your particular view. The attempts in the past undertaken by contrarians showing that there is no 'Hockey Stick' were very feeble and ironically done by fudging the input data. Now who'd have thought... :roll:

I'll post again the quote I have posted in the other thread

The important point is that nothing was found in the East Anglia e-mails altering the reality and magnitude of global warming in the instrumental record. The input data for global temperature analyses are widely available, on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made to yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians would certainly have done that – but they have not.

Btw, if you do use quotes it would be great to mark them as such...the people who made them may not appreciate you using their stuff without acknowledging the source.

One final point if I may.

The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

I hope your reason for this one wasn't your stock in oil and gas corporations?! Who's wealth? Care to quantify...I mean with some real, hard numbers that stand up to some scrutiny? What about the trillions in wealth generated by changing to a non-hydro-carbon industry? Oh, right...that wealth will of course not benefit the dinosaur corporations trying to stop this change... :roll:

And if you seriously suggest coal, oil and gas to be the cheapest and most abundant then you really have no idea. Take the blinkers off and turn your head upwards...what do you see (in daytime)? Correct the most abundant source of energy in the solar system by some magnitude...the sun. The only reason coal, oil and gas are so cheap is because we don't pay for the environmental costs (yet). The same applies for nuclear power, if the costs of storing and dismantling nuclear waste was to be included into the price for a nuclear kWh then nuclear power would not be competitive. Simple really.

8)

[grezzzy_greer]

Yes I have to agree with Hobbes - its time for the contrarians to either put up or shut up.

If the climate change models are incorrect, and this is all a nasty hoax or conspiracy to relieve the large energy (oil and gas) corporations of their overloaded cash in the bank, then surely the simplest way to do it is to get together with some contrarian climatologists, build models of the planets climate showing once and for all that the existing models are wrong, and that should shoot enough holes in the sails of the Global Climate Change ship that you can easily bust the whole conspiracy wide open...

It would certainly make a lot more sense than standing on the sidelines wringing your hands and shouting that its not fair and its not right, and this is all a sham and a hoax....

Go on - do something concrete if the facts as you see them support your stance...stop whinging on this forum and go do something about it.

We say we have seen enough proof/data/effects that seem to support Climate Change and what the climatologists are saying, but you say they are all making it up...all of them...all over the world...and that all the data is wrong, the studies are wrong and the models are wrong....

If that is the case, build the alternate models - show the world how wrong the majority of climatologists are...

If you can't or won't even try, then why should we accept your proposition that the whole Global Climate Change advocacy is built on lies and untruths...?

[eagle]

Sara Palin says there is no global warming and that's enough poof for me that there is.

[warren]

Sara Palin says there is no global warming and that's enough poof for me that there is.

Global warming, climate change, climate instability, call it what you want.

My point is I don’t believe it is caused by humans or human activity.

If you think otherwise than show me some definitive proof that these weather/climate changes are caused by humans or human activity.

[eagle]

Sara Palin says there is no global warming and that's enough poof for me that there is.

Global warming, climate change, climate instability, call it what you want.

My point is I don’t believe it is caused by humans or human activity.

If you think otherwise than show me some definitive proof that these weather/climate changes are caused by humans or human activity.

We all have access to tons of information and still there are 2 different versions going around. You believe what you want. I can't offer anything new for you to chew on. I do think Palin is an idiot though...

[LakeGeneve]

If there are more hurricanes than usual - Global Warming.

If there are fewer hurricanes than usual -Global Warming.

If glaciers are shrinking - Global Warming.

If glaciers are expanding -Global Warming.

Record heat -Global Warming.

Record cold -Global Warming.

Floods - Global Warming.

Drought - Global Warming.

Thick tree rings - Global Warming.

Thin tree rings - Global Warming.

If the infallible IPCC Weather Indicator is missing, some climate scientist must have deleted it.

Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Instability = Greenhoax Effect.

Y2Kyoto: Climate Instability Just Around The Corner

I picked up on something said during a television interview at Copenhagen last week, and both my gut and my search engine tell me the language of the UN's great socialist money-sucking scheme is evolving once again.

Just as "global warming" was pushed into an inconveniently cold and bitter night, "climate change" may be readying its last will and testament.

"Climate change" was always a weak substitute for "global warming", because it was always so easy to rebut. As even the experts were forced to concede, the climate is always changing and has since long before man discovered spark plugs.

This new terminology is more clever, for it neatly avoids the shortcomings of its clumsy forebears. It requires neither warming, nor change. Just television.

When blizzards descend on scientists and world leaders from Copenhagen to East Anglia to Washington, they warmists can now claim ownership.

When hurricane forecasts fall short of the mark, the propagandists can cite their very failure to support their scheme.

Warm winters, cold winters, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, growing ice caps, melting ice caps - directions won't matter. Every "new" temperature record, every seasonal flood, every California hot spell, every dusting of snow in the south of France - in other words, local weather, reported globally, will return full force as evidence of anthropogenic climate crime, as it did in a simpler time when the ice conditions of a canal in Ottawa led to nationwide panic.

So, get ready to welcome the new talking point on the block: "climate instability".

Welcome tin-foil-hat wearer! We have however moved on even though the politicians in Copenhagen have not.

Just a small pointer though...do not confuse what the actual scientist are saying with what the media are putting out there every day. As surprising as this may come to you put these are not the same things.

A warm, fuzzy and conspiracy-free Christmas to you as well then.

8)

you must talking about actual scientists like the IPCC chief warm-monger Rajendra K. Pachauri. Oh wait a minute, he's a railroad engineer.

I will have a nice Christmas thank you very much but it won't be warm.

It;s freezing here, must be climate instability.

Merry Christmas

Again, your half-truths and innuendo won't convince anyone here. :roll:

Dr. R.K. Pachauri started his career at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. You and others may have wished he'd stayed there for the rest of his professional life but as it stands he's moved on to gain a PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics from North Carolina State University.

So, unlike your little jibe is suggesting this man has worked for most of his career in the fields of energy resources and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, publishing 21 books, papers and articles. That does make him kinda qualified to do what he does as head of the IPCC.

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri biography

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri Wikipedia

By the way, I'm too just a lowly engineer yet I don't have any problems comprehending the research published on AGW. Then again I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat...

:roll:

half-truths and innuendo: sounds like the climatic research unit at Britain's University of East Anglia.(climategate) they just fudged the numbers and cherry picked data to show a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But why worry? their not industrial engineers, their just scientists

Advocacy and the science of Global warming are in bed together and both are having a really good time.

You really have no glue have you? Care to provide some evidence towards your wild accusations?

There is no such thing as a 'Climate Gate', it's a non-story about stolen private correspondence being selectively quoted out of context. I doubt that CRU has fudged it's numbers for the simple reason that many other researchers have independently arrived at the same conclusions and because the peer review process would discover manipulation. But hey, of course thousands of scientist are just out to put the evil oil industry out of business... :roll:

The 'Hockey Stick' is not illusory as even the US Academy of Science acknowledged when tasked at looking at the validity and methodology of the 'Hockey Stick'.

Dude, just don't take off that hat of yours... :roll:

The CRU has it's own definition of "peer review"

Australian journalist Andrew Bolt has a good overview of the story, with a selection of incriminating e-mails that have already been discovered in the hacked data. Note that these e-mails reveal more than just what it going on at the CRU, since they involve numerous leading British and American climate scientists outside of the CRU.

Your quoting Andrew Bolt as some informed unbiased source!?! WTF! You really are desperately clutching at straws.

For those that don't know, Andrew Bolt is a social conservative commentator for a Murdoch owned tabloid daily paper in Melbourne, The Herald-Sun. His political views are perhaps somewhere between Foxes O'Reilly and Beck, you can get an idea of his disposition here which also gives a clear insight into his petty, unscientific, ideologue based views on climate change.

Apart from agreeing with Hobbes to be clear about what your quoting and copying in your posts you might want to step up a few notches the quality of any sources which you believe supports your view.

[LakeGeneve]

attention ********its winter time***********

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhh............no it's not, Herbal Essence. Winter starts the same time every year, 21 December, Thai Stick. The Bloomberg article said the country was experiencing the coldest "winter conditions" (repeat: IT AIN'T WINTER YET) in 14 or 16 years, Panama Red. I can't wait to see what January through March (that's peak winter, Clown) brings. It's kinda hard to square the bullshit with the facts, esp. when the facts hit you like wind chill smack in the face. Back to tokin' and fryin' brain cells, Maui Wowie. Merry Christmas.

I guess using yourshort term logic Portsmouth winning on the weekend means that they are going to win the EPL (or the Browns will win the Super Bowl), a 3 day rise on the NYSE in the middle of a bearish period is a sign that stocks are good and 3 days of rain in the middle of the dry season would mean that the wet season has arrived! :roll:

It rained in BKK this morning with big dark clouds spread all over the city.

CLEARLY that means that the dry season is over and all of those overwhelming number of scientists, based on long term climatic trends, who came to the conclusion that there is a dry season in the area are patently incorrect based on todays events!!! :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Bruce551]

Finding common ground on climate change - Boulder Daily Camera

Some thoughts about why the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen failed to produce expected results and this country, and why other industrial nations are so reluctant to commit to real solutions to an inevitable global warming/climate changing future.

Remember how long it took for people to get serious about the long-term effects of cigarette smoking. It shortens lives but has a low-level long-term effect.

The same is true with relatively low levels of radiation. Radiation has a low-level long-term effect which shortens lives (and also can affect progeny) just as surely as smoking.

But people are not concerned about these serious life-shorteners because they seem programmed to worry only about high-level, short-term problems, such as an accident or a fire or a cold or the flu or the loss of a job or a serious health problem or family squabbles or the economy or you name it. The immediate problems are (understandably) what we focus on. But should or can we ignore the long-term problems?

A Dec. 9 CBS/NYT poll finds just 37 percent of Americans call global warming a high priority, while 61 percent say stimulating the economy should come first, with only 29 percent saying protecting the environment is more important.

For almost all Americans the adverse effects of global warming/climate change are a low-level long-term effect and so they are not very concerned about their more distant future. This is true of most people around the world, just not the ones who are already suffering from terrible adverse effects of climate change.

Those most directly experiencing effects of global warming include people in the Maldives, an island nation sure to be swallowed up by rising sea level, as its president, Mohamed Nasheed, told the Copenhagen conference. Many developing countries are fated to suffer from the consequences of climate change.

The Inuit people who live in and around the Arctic, the epicenter of climate change, will be among the worst victims of global warming. Droughts are killing crops and causing famine in East Africa, while intensifying storms and floods are damaging and destroying communities worldwide. Tropical diseases are rising where they had been in decline for years. These disasters are attributable to human-induced global warming.

And so are melting glaciers around the world, permafrost melting, Arctic ice melting, rising sea waters, faster melting of Greenland`s ice sheet, extreme drought, sea water becoming warmer and more acidic. And there is much more that global warming is causing, and all of it has and will have devastating effects on human beings, plants and animals.

A study released by the United States Global Change Research Program, a joint scientific venture of 13 federal agencies and the White House this past June, and overseen by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, claims that the impact of changing climate is already being felt across the U.S., and it cites many such effects.

The EPA has just announced that it had determined that CO2 and five other greenhouse gases are pollutants that threaten the public health and welfare and therefore should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

But I am afraid that until large numbers of U.S. citizens actually suffer from more immediate effects of climate change there will be no hue and cry to do anything besides talk and defer action, since right now these effects are low level and long range.

But they are just as inevitable as the deleterious effects of smoking and radiation.

Too often we find that people and their legislators allow politics, beliefs, money and emotions to trump science, reality, reason and logic.

Until that order is reversed I fear our children and grandchildren face a bleak and dangerous future.

Joel Selbin lives in Boulder.

http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_14112148

:!:

[LakeGeneve]

Biggest freeze in Europe and China for decades......yet where is vbroker???

He should be telling us that it is all a clear sign that Global Warming is a myth and he was right to say "I can't wait to see what January.... brings"! :roll: :roll: :roll:

[vbroker]

...where is vbroker???

Anywhere but this idiotic, "moderated," hasn't seen a technological upgrade (the Myspace downgrade was the only "improvement" in '06 if memory serves) in over three years website. I'd like to think I've more interesting ways to piss away 2 - 4 hours on average per day every day than trolling here.

House of Cards Collapses

Clowns

Big F*uckin' Shock

Scientific fraud. "Academia" corrupted by the liberal poison. There is going to be a comeuppance the magnitude of which will match the vile lies and character assassinations perpetrated by the heinous left. We've already seen it in Virginia, New Jersey and praise the Lord, Massachusetts. This despicable, destructive, anti-business, anti-merit, anti-capitalism Socialist/Communist agenda is going to be stopped. Cold and dead.

F*ck liberals.

[Bruce551]

Extreme weather is climate change! Not only does "Snowpocalypse" not disprove global warming, it actually matches scientific predictions that climate change will increase extreme weather events of many kinds, including heavy snowfalls in regions like the Northeast.

Hint for idiots: The Earth is warmer with more water vapor in the air, so there is an increased possibility of heavy snow fall during winter.

:roll:

[vbroker]

Extreme weather is climate change! Not only does "Snowpocalypse" not disprove global warming, it actually matches scientific predictions that climate change will increase extreme weather events of many kinds, including heavy snowfalls in regions like the Northeast.

Hint for idiots: The Earth is warmer with more water vapor in the air, so there is an increased possibility of heavy snow fall during winter.

Brilliant post, GQ Cover Model. Now I understand why you need hard left liberal "pundits" to speak for you. Two years ago the slime left insisted everything was melting and entire islands would be engulfed. Now we're told the pendulum swings the other way....

So according to this logic, either you're marrying your bar girl or you ain't.

"Well, you know, she USED to work in the bars, but ever since she met me *cough* *cough* she's been on the straight and narrow *hiccup* and I don't mean other punters' poles *guffaw* *guffaw* and I take care of ALL her financial needs; including the extended family so I KNOW she's now a lily white angel. I mean, hell, look at what a shining, western example she has now. I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE SAYS, MY HONEY IS ALL MINE."

Yes she is, Dipsh*t. Then, after it becomes blatant to even Stupid A*s the ***** is just a *****, leave it to the libelous liberal to INSIST otherwise.

"Well what did you expect? She DID used to work the bars. How dare you call her what she was? She and I are trying....REALLY trying. She told me it'll never happen again....in fact she said she did it because she loved me...she felt guilty taking 50,000 Baht every month from me and wanted to contribute to our ever lasting love....."

Good luck with that, hansum man.......

The Jig Is Up

Screw You

Go "You Know What" Yourself

And how could I miss this clown:

This makes very good reading, and should help clarify some of the "points" raised by the skeptics.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

It makes ridiculous reading and is far from "unbiased."

There are those who will never understand the science simply because they need to make it into a political fight instead of looking at the problem simply as what it is: a threat to the global environment.

You and the simpletons that think like you are the threat: to prosperity, freedom and trade. In short, human progress. But you're all going to be stopped.

Global Climate Change is a potentially extremely destructive event - we are actually measuring and seeing a warming trend.

Not according to your own disgraced guru Phil Jones, Bozo.

One particular poster in this forum has exceeded all expectations when it comes to stupidity based on politics - that person knows who I mean....

And I think that metastasized "beauty mark" should be surgically removed. Soon.....

[eagle]

Vbroker says

Now we're told the pendulum swings the other way....

What would you do with out Fox news

pffffpffffffpfffff

[zeusbheld]

Extreme weather is climate change! Not only does "Snowpocalypse" not disprove global warming, it actually matches scientific predictions that climate change will increase extreme weather events of many kinds, including heavy snowfalls in regions like the Northeast.

Hint for idiots: The Earth is warmer with more water vapor in the air, so there is an increased possibility of heavy snow fall during winter.

Brilliant post, GQ Cover Model. Now I understand why you need hard left liberal "pundits" to speak for you. Two years ago the slime left insisted everything was melting and entire islands would be engulfed. Now we're told the pendulum swings the other way....

So according to this logic, either you're marrying your bar girl or you ain't.

"Well, you know, she USED to work in the bars, but ever since she met me *cough* *cough* she's been on the straight and narrow *hiccup* and I don't mean other punters' poles *guffaw* *guffaw* and I take care of ALL her financial needs; including the extended family so I KNOW she's now a lily white angel. I mean, hell, look at what a shining, western example she has now. I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE SAYS, MY HONEY IS ALL MINE."

Yes she is, Dipsh*t. Then, after it becomes blatant to even Stupid A*s the ***** is just a *****, leave it to the libelous liberal to INSIST otherwise.

"Well what did you expect? She DID used to work the bars. How dare you call her what she was? She and I are trying....REALLY trying. She told me it'll never happen again....in fact she said she did it because she loved me...she felt guilty taking 50,000 Baht every month from me and wanted to contribute to our ever lasting love....."

Good luck with that, hansum man.......

i find it marginally interesting that no matter what the topic, you digress into a rant about bar girls, under-age hookers, "thai stick" and other vices.

bitter much? what happened, last time you were at dullivers (out of many) the hot hooker turn you down?

[PiAnt]

Too many people.

Thin the ranks is a damn good idea.

[vbroker]

Extreme weather is climate change! Not only does "Snowpocalypse" not disprove global warming, it actually matches scientific predictions that climate change will increase extreme weather events of many kinds, including heavy snowfalls in regions like the Northeast.

Hint for idiots: The Earth is warmer with more water vapor in the air, so there is an increased possibility of heavy snow fall during winter.

Brilliant post, GQ Cover Model. Now I understand why you need hard left liberal "pundits" to speak for you. Two years ago the slime left insisted everything was melting and entire islands would be engulfed. Now we're told the pendulum swings the other way....

So according to this logic, either you're marrying your bar girl or you ain't.

"Well, you know, she USED to work in the bars, but ever since she met me *cough* *cough* she's been on the straight and narrow *hiccup* and I don't mean other punters' poles *guffaw* *guffaw* and I take care of ALL her financial needs; including the extended family so I KNOW she's now a lily white angel. I mean, hell, look at what a shining, western example she has now. I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE SAYS, MY HONEY IS ALL MINE."

Yes she is, Dipsh*t. Then, after it becomes blatant to even Stupid A*s the ***** is just a *****, leave it to the libelous liberal to INSIST otherwise.

"Well what did you expect? She DID used to work the bars. How dare you call her what she was? She and I are trying....REALLY trying. She told me it'll never happen again....in fact she said she did it because she loved me...she felt guilty taking 50,000 Baht every month from me and wanted to contribute to our ever lasting love....."

Good luck with that, hansum man.......

i find it marginally interesting that no matter what the topic, you digress into a rant about bar girls, under-age hookers, "thai stick" and other vices.

bitter much? what happened, last time you were at dullivers (out of many) the hot hooker turn you down?

It's just as interesting you were talking about "leaving" BKK in '08. Kinda like the '07 TF technological upgrade decree. Not to be, huh? Well....at least "something" ultimately happened there, right? In that case, you got until next year to make some sort of change. All the best.....

Some people's "issues" are more interesting than others.

I destroyed this argument years ago and we're now seeing just how culpable the left is (as if this is a big surprise) regarding deceit, lies and chicanery. So it's more fun to abuse the posting clowns that insist on dragging out an already dead horse; esp. those re-posting newspaper articles here.

If/when something new and interesting comes along (I won't hold my breath) maybe I'll engage.

Too many people.

Thin the ranks is a damn good idea.

It's time to get re-banned, then?

[zeusbheld]

It's just as interesting you were talking about "leaving" BKK in '08. Kinda like the '07 TF technological upgrade decree. Not to be, huh? Well....at least "something" ultimately happened there, right? In that case, you got until next year to make some sort of change. All the best.....

i see your'e desperately trying to make my life seem colorful. as it happens, i got another job. one job ends, another starts, pay being the same its' cheaper to live in bangkok (or KL if the politics here get too chaotic) than New York. nothing terribly scandalous. no bar girls, not "lolitas", not even that much drinking (although foodland has 28 baht sake, goes well with mussels and cockeshells). nothing for you to wank over, you'll have to go back to looking at yourself in the mirror when you pound pud, sorry.

Some people's "issues" are more interesting than others.

yes. yours are a lot more interesting than mine. you could probably find a shrink to pay you, as i'm sure they'd be able to publish and enhance their professional rep. i'm sure the guys who evaluated Henry Lee Lucas are available.

I destroyed this argument years ago[/qutoe]

you've never destroyed an argument in your life. in fact if a truck full of rational arguments ran you over, you still wouldn't know what hit you. lies, misquotes and personal attacks do not count as destroying an argument anywhere except in your warped, bitter venomous mind.

and we're now seeing just how culpable the left is (as if this is a big surprise) regarding deceit, lies and chicanery.

yet you never post anything but deceit, lies and chicanery yourself. so the end justifies the means? is it really worth it? take a look in the mirror some time when your hand's NOT on your ****. how can you possibly like the two-faced, bitter, spiteful, deceitful piece of **** you've become? hopefully you do, even if no one else does otherwise it's a hard road for you. good luck with that.

So it's more fun to abuse the posting clowns that insist on dragging out an already dead horse; esp. those re-posting newspaper articles here.

If/when something new and interesting comes along (I won't hold my breath) maybe I'll engage.

while i may, if pressed, agree that nothing new and interesting has come about on this site... not recently and possibly ever... and i am equally baffled by the notion that posting a newspaper article and bolding the parts one likes is somehow interesting... i've yet to see you engage in anything beyond personal attacks. to your credit though, you don't seem to mind having abuse heaped on you in return. guess that's why you keep coming back to this site to spend time posting rants about how you dont' understand how someone can waste their time on this site, huh? although when it comes to time wasting, it seems obvious why the site would be of some marginal interest to someone who happens to live in bangkok than, say, someone who lives in san fran crisco and only flies here to shag hookers now and then.