Meantime, a huge chunk of floating Antarctic ice broke free from the bridge connecting it to the continent. But hey, a two degree variance in annual temperature readings taken in one reclaimed Texas flood plain is a much more relaible indicator of global climate conditions than the melt-induced dispatch of a Jamaica-sized piece of ice from the coldest reaches of the planet into the seven seas.

Despite the cold temperature, I’ll bet there were still nuts swimming in Barton Springs this morning.

Come to think of it, it was probably warmer “in the water” at Barton Springs than standing on the bank!

Hey Pat…how’s it going Mohammad?

You pathological liar…the only global warming you know about is what come out of your butt.

With all the cooling, does that mean that Ice Queen will mean someone other than Pat’s fake lesbian daughter?

ya know how to tell if GW is fake? Nothing is reported to be a benefit of globull warming. Nothing. The adherents of the Religion Of Global Warming will tell you of the dire consequences of our actions, but if it were real, there would be as many benefits as drawbacks. Fake ass shit.
Same ole hippie hysteria (I know, I repeat myself) as always.
Of course, they have adapted to the obvious shortcomings of the ROGW, namely the warming part, and have been calling it “climate change for a while now.

If an ice chunk breaks off, but doesn’t melt, is it still gorebal warming?
Here is an image of the Antarctic with the ice bridge noted, and how big an impact this has.
And what do you know, there is a volcano near the the ice bridge. Don’t volcanoes get hot or sumpin’?
I think the adherents of gorebal warming should all go stand at the base of every active volcano and stage a huge protest. That would solve all our problems.
Just remember, whenever anthropogenic climate change is mentioned, there is a hidden OOGAH-BOOGAH after it, even if you can’t see it. Much like you can’t see CO2 gaseous plant food.

BTW, must over a year ago, the antartic ice cap had record growth.

You really should bone up on your denialist rhetoric. Alternate explanations offered by skeptics for observed warming such as volcanoes, sun spots, and spontaneous methane emissions have gotten honest hearings in the scientific arena and have been mostly rejected by the majority of practicing geoscientists. Volcanic activity, for one, has not increased substantially in the last 200 years to create the degree of warming currently being observed. That’s been verified in the geological record.

Tangentially, it is pretty revealing that, out of one side of your mouth you deny there is any significant warming occurring, while on the other side you proffer every discredited alternate explanation you can Google-up for the fact that our oceans are warming at a rate not seen since prehistoric times. So which is it? Is the planet warming or cooling, or are you only arguing your weakly-supported points for arguments sake?

The term “global warming” is a misnomer because the jury is still out on what the ultimate consequences of increased CO2 will be, with some predicting a long-term period of warming and others predicting an eventual shift in ocean currents that would move us into a new Ice Age of unknown duration. The geological record tells us both outcomes are possible. On that there is a gulf in consensus, but the FACT that temperatures are rising at the planet’s extremes is not in dispute by those who read the science objectively. That’s actually how science works – informed consensus is a dynamic and evolving thing, as opposed to faith-based explanations for natural phenomena which commit the logical fallacy of accepting arguments from authority.

Much like you can’t see CO2 gaseous plant food.

Plant food? Wow – maybe there is life on Venus after all…

Poor Pat! He didn’t know his ass crack was out of alignment with mecca. Now all his prayers for the destruction of the World, the US, and Urbangrounds won’t come true.

This is good stuff. I’m liking the BBB vs. Pat match-up. Could you other pretenders to the respective thrones hush up and let these two duke it out?

I’ll sodomise the liberal out of Pat.

Jonny

I’ll sodomise the liberal out of Pat.

Jonny

Left by Jonny on April 8th, 2009 at 5:57 pm

Will you make him squeal like a pig? My fake homo son will……..

sorry tom, That’s all I got.

“since prehistoric times”…..that’s the line I like best. I had NO IDEA that the oceans temp’s have actually been measured all this time. WOW. I’m mean fuckin WOW.

I had NO IDEA that the oceans temp’s have actually been measured all this time.

But Tlp, prehistory covers a lot of ground.
I like it when they say “prehistory” without mentioning ice core samples, and other indicators, that show how often ice ages appear, then warm again, all without little ol’ us.

Nice save for your fellow jumping-bean there, N2L. Even you know the that geological strata contains multitudes of evidence of ancient atmospheric conditions. Feels pretty good to be such a Man among mental midgets, eh?

Sorry, But The Science Is Never ‘Settled’

You’re become more predictable than Big Ben, N2L.

The same David Deming made this prescient observation not too long ago:

Obama is a vapid demagogue, a hollow man that despises American culture. He is ill-suited to be president of the United States. As the weeks pass, more Americans will come to this realization and elect McCain/Palin in a landslide.

A roundly discredited old-school denier, OU revoked a vital teaching certificate from Deming last October. The National Center for Policy Analysis, a think tank for which he serves as an Adjunct Scholar, has received $465,000 from Exxon in the last ten years. Demning belongs to an exclusive club of “scientists” who make at least some of their living from the petrochemical and mining industries masquerading as credible scientists.

I suppose your next post will bombard us with links to similar wingnut welfare recipients like Mario Lewis, Chris Horner, Kenneth Green, Joel Schwartz, S. Fred Singer, David Legates, Sandy Liddy Bourne, and Thomas Gale Moore.

Try bringing your “A” game sometime, bro.

Interestingly, Deming’s Wiki page cites at least 29 articles written by him and not one is published in a scientific journal. If his skepticism is truly fact-based and not serving some other agenda, then why won’t he submit his findings to peer review? It’s because has no findings. He’s done absolutely zero primary research on climate change, instead relying on his cloak of authority as a geology professor to sow doubt rather than explain the basis of his skepticism, which appears to be little more than his own political agenda (see above.)

Jackass! Yeah, you Patty. When I attended university, climatetology fell under the auspices of the geology department. What is hilarious is that you, some low level number cruncher, thinks he is an authority in everything.

I’ll sodomise the liberal out of Pat.
Jonny
Left by Jonny on April 8th, 2009 at 5:57 pm

Obviously, Jonny, needs to give you another ass pounding.

OK, I’ll play along with the anonymous coward. Please point me to some research that establishes Deming’s credentials on climate.

When did I cite Al Gore?

I’ll report, you decide.

Exhibit #1: 31,000 signatures collected from an online petition

Exhibit #2:

In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. 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 analyzing 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 analysis, 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.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

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.</blockquote>

You are hereby forgiven for falling short of the intellectual challenge, N2L. I would be similarly disadvantaged if I spent as much time in this here sandbox as you do.

OK, I’ll play along with the anonymous coward. Please point me to some research that establishes Deming’s credentials on climate. Left by Pat on April 9th, 2009 at 10:35 am

And I’ll play along with the lady who just got the ass pounding. Where is the primary research on climate change that you have performed to establish global warming?

Hate to break it to you, Patricia, it’s not necessary for Deming to have performed primary research on climate change. Unlike you, he is capable of reviewing and understanding the research that has been performed. As previously, stated, you do not.

And please don’t lecture anyone on being driven by a political agenda. I doubt you can take a whizz with out injecting politics into it.

Now, drop your pants, bend over, and wait for jonny.

Unlike you, he is capable of reviewing and understanding the research that has been performed

Of course he is, he’s got a doctorate after all!! How can 95% of the world’s geophysical scientists disagree with him?!

n2L – You can link to deniers all day long and you’ll never come up with enough credible skepticsm amounting to anything worthy of serious rebuttal. If any of the authors of these articles were doing independent research or informed critiques and publishing those findings in scientific journals, then they would be judged by the exact same standards of proof required of climate change proponents, but they’re not. Only then could their propositions be honestly evaluated. But you and I know that’s not gonna happen because it’s not really their function in this debate. The industry that created the astroturf stratgey of which these deniers are an integral part needs only to inject tiny seeds of doubt into the public consciousness in order to promote their own self-interest, a much easier task than proving their counter-claims through the scientific method.

well, hell, he squealed like a pig without my fake homo son. Just read all its posts. Patty, you must live in a small, dark world. With a big picture window looking out over town lake……….the sky ain’t falling, man.

Yes No2, I will drop my sarcasm for a minute, Pat and his cohorts would like to see the little people on buses, going to government food stores and back. Not out despoiling nature, driving 4 wheel drive vehicles, breathing air, etc. Those areas are (in pats mind) reserved for the stewards of nature-the yuppies. Global warming is a political movement and in a way, a religious movement. Without God, they need this to give themselves meaning. Pat NEEDS globullwarming. Algore NEEDS globullwarming. Look at his above posts. He fervently believes it, studies it, recites it. He endlessly trolls this site with this belief posting the same old stuff. He really can’t believe we don’t believe.

Yeah N2, I don’t know pat or want to, all I know is the yuppies at work spout the global warming crap. I had to deal with the greasy hippies a long time ago, got to see the damage up close and personal.