Fairweather

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.

The thing is, the revenue side really does need to be addressed--and letting the GWB tax cuts expire (for everyone) would be a good thing. Unfortunately, those on my side of the fence see useless unionist thug sponges like j_b screeching like baby birds in a nest and we ask ourselves whether tax increases are really going to get us out of this hole that we're in. Cuts first, public sector reform second, new revenues last.

Swiftboating. At least the Repubs had the decency to wait until a nominee was chosen, dammit.

I'll bet you were poppin Prozac like popcorn. Your therapy bill probably hasn't been this high since A.I. was in theaters.

Um, didn't your DNC buddies send you your talking points? Cain was last week. This week's topic is Gingrich or, um, uh, whichever R happens to be leading in the polls.

While I agree with you one hundred percent on this, I gotta smirk when I see you supporting your premises with citations from the same "tired, dusty old document" that you openly mock when it's contents prove ideologically inconvenient. No clue what your on about here...I'd guess it's yer brain not workin' right again, but that's coo! Think real hard. (Difficult for you, I know.) It may become easier once the smoke clears.

While I agree with you one hundred percent on this, I gotta smirk when I see you supporting your premises with citations from the same "tired, dusty old document" that you openly mock when it's contents prove ideologically inconvenient.

That's the first time I ever heard an innernutz assclown label Cronkite as 'trivial'. I don't think you did your already somewhat...um...tenuous credibility any favors there, laddie. It's unfortunately not the first time I see an assclown who doesn't understand what he just read. One incidence is trivial evidence by opposition to the behavior in general. You know what, fuckwad? I grew up watching coverage of the Vietnam war. I watched it pretty closely...my 2nd grade classmate's brother died there, and me pops was there for 2 years. The news didn't pull any punches in telling it like it was. Reporters risked and lost their lives telling it like it was. If your lilly-livered, I've-done-fuck-all-but-whine post modern ego requires denigration of that kind sacrifice, that's cool. And you also need to fuck off, you pusillanimous little fucking insect. Clear enough, or would you like another 'anecdotal' opinion? passmethefuckingpopcornIlovethisshit

Don't worry, they'll pull it out. (And spray it all over our backs.)