Fairweather

Don't be too hard on her. I mean, hey, some girls just aren't into listening to their ego maniacal beau talk all over the on-screen dialogue at the same time he's shoving 3000cal of Orville Redenbaucher's non-stop into his hole.

Gotta love the irony when the self-professed open-minded use homosexuality as a bludgeon. Kinda makes me wanna go

I just can't believe she's still hangin' in there after what, six months? Gotta be having doubts about now, I'd bet. (Or maybe just low self esteem.)

Of course.

Hence, the title of my thread. I'm more interested in BBC's deviation from its own template. But never mind that the one degree to which you allude represents a reduction of over half the previous estimates. Or that you present nothing that disputes the report in the BBC piece. Or that the link you posted is not relevant to the study--given that it continues to assume previous CO2 correlations are correct. Again, if this were not so inconvenient for your worldview, I suspect it would not be so difficult for you to understand.

Gotta love hearing from the guy who swallowed the hook which told us that all of the glaciers in the lower 48 would be gone in ten years. (Ten years ago.) I guess this is what happens when you let politicians filter science--and call it science.

...from the FoxNews of the left. A fine contribution there, Feck. But what about the BBC report that calls some of your precious IPCC findings into question? What about the famous "Hockey Stick" graph?

Oh yea; almost forgot:

Too bad you don't "bring it up" when your fellow parishioners resort to this tactic. Like, daily.

dEAr poRTEr, I aM reaLlY SorRy i iNSuLteD YoUR rEliGion aNd yOU Got mAD. fW

Just what I thought: another zealot who worships at the church of CO2 global warming. Let me know when your fellow tools have retooled their message such that it is once again a convenient tool. Tool.

Just that humanity's footprint on the planet (deforestation, desertification, pollution, heat islands, etc.) bears no relation to it? Nope. Didn't say that either. If I did, then, by all means, show me where.

You forgot to ask about the turkey-baster and Mar... Never mind.

This statement, according to most of the true believers here, makes you a blasphemous, right-wing, regressive, flat-Earth society, corporate shill. Welcome aboard, Jon.

Did I say it's not warming?

Solar output. Milenkovich cycle. Maybe a little albedo/darkening of glaciers downwind of urban centers. Certainly not CO2/greenhouse. Certainly not the IPCC bullshit report. The thing I found interesting about the BBC piece is that it's the first time they've deviated--even slightly--from the global warming narrative.

It's true; you're all willing dupes. http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/index.htm http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/CO2_atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.pdf No tangible, physical evidence exists for a cause–and–effect relationship between changing atmospheric CO2 and global temperature changes over the last 150 years. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 has increased doesn’t prove that CO2 has caused the warming phases observed from 1915 to 1945 and 1977 to 1998. As shown by isotope measurements from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica and by measurements of atmospheric CO2 during El Nino warming, oceans emit more CO2 into the atmosphere during climatic warming. The ice core records indicate that after the last Ice Age, temperatures rose for about 600–800 years before atmospheric CO2 rose, showing that climatic warming caused CO2 to rise, not vice versa. The present high level of atmospheric CO2 may be the result of human input, but the contribution that it makes to global warming is very small. Global warming of ~0.4° C occurred from about 1910 to 1940 without any significant increase in atmospheric CO2. Global cooling occurred from the mid 1940s to 1977 despite soaring CO2 in the atmosphere (Fig. 12A,B). Global temperatures and CO2 both increased from 1977 to 1998 but that doesn’t prove that the warming was caused by increased CO2. Although CO2 has risen from 1998 to 2008 no global warming has occurred. In fact, the climate has cooled. Thus, global warming bears almost no correlation with rising atmospheric CO2. Figure

Here comes the Static Earth Society....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15858603 Global temperatures could be less sensitive to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels than previously thought, a study suggests. The researchers said people should still expect to see "drastic changes" in climate worldwide, but that the risk was a little less imminent. The results are published in Science. Previous climate models have used meteorological measurements from the last 150 years to estimate the climate's sensitivity to rising CO2. From these models, scientists find it difficult to narrow their projections down to a single figure with any certainty, and instead project a range of temperatures that they expect, given a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels. The new analysis, which incorporates palaeoclimate data into existing models, attempts to project future temperatures with a little more certainty. Lead author Andreas Schmittner from Oregon State University, US, explained that by looking at surface temperatures during the last Ice Age - 21,000 years ago - when humans were having no impact on global temperatures, he, and his colleagues, show that this period was not as cold as previous estimates suggest. "This implies that the effect of CO2 on climate is less than previously thought," he explained By incorporating this newly discovered "climate insensitivity" into their models, the international team was able to reduce their uncertainty in future climate projections. The new models predict that given a doubling in CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 1.7 to 2.6 degrees C. That is a much tighter range than suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s 2007 report, which suggested a rise of between 2 to 4.5 degrees C. The new analysis also reduces the expected average surface temperatures to just over 2 degrees C, from 3. The authors stress the results do not mean threat from human-induced climate change should be treated any less seriously, explained palaeoclimatologist Antoni Rosell-Mele from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, who is a member of the team that came up with the new estimates. But it does mean that to induce large-scale warming of the planet, leading lead to widespread catastrophic consequences, we would have to increase CO2 more than we are going to do in the near future, he said. "But we don't want that to happen at any time, right?" "At least, given that no one is doing very much around the planet [about] mitigating CO2 emissions, we have a bit more time," he remarked.

Drinking the KoolAid, I see.

...and it looks like a bunch of 'em were hired by the state. How does the big "decline" in state employment compare to, say, the pain being endured in private sector employment? I doubt it's commensurate.

WA State Government Employment Including Higher Education FTEs (Full Time Employees) 2010 109,973 2009 112,545 2008 111,420 2007 108,693 2006 106,641 2005 106,769 2004 105,078 2003 104,263 2002 103,818 2001 102,042 2000 99,928 1999 97,900 1998 95,023 1997 93,682 1996 91,828 1995 91,891 1994 89,603 1993 90,174 1992 87,662 1991 84,563 1990 80,309

Gotta love the attempts at in-text citation that you're including with your posts, but, hint: you're not writing a 200-level rhetorical analysis here. And style points only count when referencing scholarly work--which is far from the gurge you're trying to pass off as credible here.