I wonder what you"ll do once the insurance companies finally come down on the RNC. When the republicans finally acquiesce, will you roll over and accept your failings as a person? Will your head explode? The truth shall set you free (or explode your brain possibly in your case). Cling to your blogs and your out of context graphs, your ironic name-calling, your hubris, your conspiracy theories for as long as you like. You only stand to make yourself out the fool.

And all the things the wise men claimed have not come to pass, and all the things the damn fools claimed did.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I wonder what you"ll do once the insurance companies finally come down on the RNC. When the republicans finally acquiesce, will you roll over and accept your failings as a person? Will your head explode? The truth shall set you free (or explode your brain possibly in your case). Cling to your blogs and your out of context graphs, your ironic name-calling, your hubris, your conspiracy theories for as long as you like. You only stand to make yourself out the fool.

 

Since I have no respect for the RNC, it doesn't matter to me what insurance companies do to them.


 

You should read some of the actual science on the topic, rather than Salon.com and The Guardian.


 

EDIT: Here's one ...


 

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ot03100r.html

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/ccgs...00?cmp=rss

 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Since I have no respect for the RNC, it doesn't matter to me what insurance companies do to them.


 
You should read some of the actual science on the topic, rather than Salon.com and The Guardian.


 
EDIT: Here's one ...


 
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ot03100r.html'>http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ot03100r.html</a>

Did you even read that? I don't think it means what you think it means...


Here's another one from the same year:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ip07000h.html'>http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ip07000h.html</a>

---

And all the things the wise men claimed have not come to pass, and all the things the damn fools claimed did.

Anti-intellectualism is not a family value.

---

Anti-intellectualism is not a family value.

Poor liberal

---

Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.

Poor liberal

How's the Mayan prophecy treating you?

---

Did you even read that? I don't think it means what you think it means...


Here's another one from the same year:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ip07000h.html'>http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ip07000h.html</a>

 

From my link:


 

 

 

The energy budget of the most recent decade does, however, indicate a lower range of values for the more policy-relevant transient climate response (the temperature increase at the point of doubling of the atmospheric CO₂ concentration following a linear ramp of increasing greenhouse gas forcing) than the range obtained by either analysing the energy budget of earlier decades or current climate model simulations.

 

Translating that into English, it says that the temperature increase from CO2 based on actual measurements is less that previous estimates based on theory. It doesn't say how much less in the abstract, but it's about half. So based on the current 'consensus science' the predictions of future climate change are much less dire, which is what I've been saying all along.


 

That goes along with your link which states that 'more than half' (51% ?) of the warming since 1950 is from humans, leaving a lot of the warming due to other causes. That also makes sense with what we've observed, since an 18 year pause proves that other factors are at least as strong as CO2 in changing the global temperature.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

From my link:



Translating that into English, it says that the temperature increase from CO2 based on actual measurements is less that previous estimates based on theory. It doesn't say how much less in the abstract, but it's about half. So based on the current 'consensus science' the predictions of future climate change are much less dire, which is what I've been saying all along.


That goes along with your link which states that 'more than half' (51% ?) of the warming since 1950 is from humans, leaving a lot of the warming due to other causes. That also makes sense with what we've observed, since an 18 year pause proves that other factors are at least as strong as CO2 in changing the global temperature.

Yea, that's not really what it says but whatever man. It is interesting to me that you will quote NASA's publications when you feel you can misconstrue the science to your own agenda, but refuse to agree to their official position on the subject. Rather convenient.

---

Anti-intellectualism is not a family value.

Who you gonna believe, them sciency types or ur lyin' eyes?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yea, that's not really what it says but whatever man. It is interesting to me that you will quote NASA's publications when you feel you can misconstrue the science to your own agenda, but refuse to agree to their official position on the subject. Rather convenient.

 

It is exactly what is says. I quoted a source you foolishly trust to make my point and you complain about it?


 

In any case they were not NASA publications. They were publications from outsiders that the NASA Global Warming Climate Change group chose to post on their website.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I can't believe that this thread is still "alive".  It's not like it deals with anything that is really important.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

It is exactly what is says. I quoted a source you foolishly trust to make my point and you complain about it?


In any case they were not NASA publications. They were publications from outsiders that the NASA <del>Global Warming</del> Climate Change group chose to post on their website.

Lol your boy made the news. Too funny.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/anti_science_advocates_are_freaking_out_about_new_google_truth_rankings/'>http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/anti_science_advocates_are_freaking_out_about_new_google_truth_rankings/</a>

---

Lol your boy made the news. Too funny.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/anti_science_advocates_are_freaking_out_about_new_google_truth_rankings/'>http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/anti_science_advocates_are_freaking_out_about_new_google_truth_rankings/</a>

Because we all know that salon.com is "real news" just like global warming climate change is real.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/en...-Rudd.html


It don't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...


Times are a changing.


Folks are beginning to sing new tunes.


(I expect 2016 will be the last presidential election Republicans will be able to completely skirt the issue.)

---

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/en...-Rudd.html


It don't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...


Times are a changing.


Folks are beginning to sing new tunes.


(I expect 2016 will be the last presidential election Republicans will be able to completely skirt the issue.)

 

Times are a changin' for sure. Britain is talking about ending all subsidies for 'renewable energy.' Australia has ended its carbon tax and its wind farm subsidies.


 

And still, almost no one is pushing for expanding the one proven low-cost carbon-free energy source.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Times are a changin' for sure. Britain is talking about ending all subsidies for 'renewable energy.' Australia has ended its carbon tax and its wind farm subsidies.


And still, almost no one is pushing for expanding the one proven low-cost carbon-free energy source.

Interesting half-truth about Britain's new policy.


Here's the whole story:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/business/international/uk-subsidies-solar-wind.html?_r=0&referrer='>http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/business/international/uk-subsidies-solar-wind.html?_r=0&referrer=</a>


As I assumed, the subsidies are being turned off simply because the industry can now support itself.

---

How's the Mayan prophecy treating you?

Hey is that Obama smoking or is it the wheel your hamster's treading?

---

Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.

As I assumed, the subsidies are being turned off simply because the industry can now support itself.

 

Bwahahaha!

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Bwahahaha!

Oh, how far we have fallen. The world keeps turning, you should turn with it.

---