[Bjorn]

Facts? Facts are that its been warm before, and will be again...fats are that the Earths temprature fluctuates in cycles, and is impacted mostly by the sun and the inners of our globe.....
whats not factual (yet to be proven) is that CO2 causes it.....

and as I`m going to drive my convertible to the Houston Autorama for the exhibit tomorrow , I just checked tomorrows weather (since I just washed the car sunday) and here is what came up.... record high...AGAIN in the period I say was the warmest...1945-1955...strange how those records always breaks the "GW period"

Tomorrow:


SunnyHigh
68°F

Precip
0%
Wind:From N at 9 mph Max. Humidity:47%UV Index:4 Moderate
Sunrise:6:55 AM CTAvg. High:69°FRecord High:84°F (1949)

[Wick]

Bjorn, did Al Bore certify those facts?

[Bjorn]

no, I guess he`s not available for comment, he`s busy blowing hot smoke somewhere else......

[Grant Miller]

Originally Posted by Wick

The facts are in the emails that they wrote, how can you spin that? It is in the information that they say they falsified, how can you spin that? These are their emails!

You need to pay attention.

[Wick]

Show us all where the spin is.....please.

[GREATGTO]

The truth is getting out, spreading like wildfire, it has a name now Climatgate

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

[Wick]

Originally Posted by GREATGTO

The truth is getting out, spreading like wildfire, it has a name now Climatgate

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

We need to pay attention, Mr Miller will tell us all about it.

[johnsma22]

It's only a blog entry, he'll say. Hardly empirical data, he'll say. Well...you see...my hand is in the cookie jar because...I just wanted....well...uhmm...you see...

This is more than likely a wistleblower within the organization itself, as opposed to hackers. Hackers may have been involved, but I'll bet they had inside help. Time will tell. A great indicator will be the continued lack of coverage by the main stream media. As long as they are ignoring it you can bet your sweet @ss that it's legit.

[Wick]

John, we just need to pay attention here. See that tail wagging on the dog over there? That's what we need to pay attention to 'cause CNN told us to. Never mind what is really happening.

[Stuckinda60s]

Grant:

Where were you in the threads about sunspots being low and temps going down? What do you have to say about the world's temp, today, being about 1*f lower than in 2000? Why do you try to ridicule the messenger and yet not post any "facts" to dispute what we've posted.

If you have anything to offer which will prove GW contentions, then post them. Otherwise, just shut up and sit in your corner because you're doing nothing other than trying to talk over the real messengers.

Other than being personal, the only thing you've for this whole thread is to talk about people not knowing the "facts". You want to see someone who doesn't concern himself with the facts? Try looking in the mirror.

If you want to have any credibility, then simply post the facts that you're so aware of. Then perhaps we could have an adult discussion of them. Remember, "the facts are the facts".

If you want to discuss "sophomoric behavior", I'd be glad to go there with you as well. I could even post some examples.

[johnsma22]

CNN's still around? How quaint.

[pierced mikey]

Originally Posted by johnsma22

CNN's still around? How quaint.

Where else are the Moonbats of Cambridge going to get their info on Coakley? You think ANYONE actually watches MSNBC????

[Grant Miller]

Let's see if I can clear this up. I don't take one side or the other on this topic. Reason? They are competing THEORIES. That means that neither side can prove their point. These are EXPERTS in their respective fields and jumping in as anything but an expert is foolish.

My comments here don't support or condemn either side. I said that in post #10, but apparently people only read what they want to. It happens on this climate change debate as well, you see an article that supports what you want to believe, so you jump in with both feet. Even if it has some very obvious flaws, you still jump in and totally ignore what else is out there. It's called tunnel vision.

Just look at some of the arguments that have been presented by Bjorn in this thread against what some call climate change. He's using daily data as one of his primary arguments when that particular theory clearly addresses that as irrelevant. So, Bjorn and the climate change camp agree on that and he continues to berate the point. How smart is that?

So, for those of you who think that Bjorn makes a lot of sense, I urge you to educate yourselves. I'm not saying that the anti climate change group doesn't make some good points. I'm just saying that Bjorn has a lot of his information mixed up and misinterpreted. Yet, he is seen as the anti climate change poster child and that would be a lot like the Marine Corps using Gomer Pyle as their poster child. I think that we can all agree that they don't do that for very good reason.

[71 T/A]

By now, Bjorn must know way more than the average TV meteorologist. He could have his own show!

[Wick]

You guys are thick, this is about one side LYING and MANIPULATING. Do you not understand? Let's say you have and engine builder that is caught lying about the HP numbers he can produce, are you still going to let him build you a motor and take his word on what kind of numbers you will have?

[Grant Miller]

One side? Only one side? Get real man. Have you even read the emails to see what they say?