One site on the Antarctic Peninsula is not even the entire Antarctic. (heh! sorry - you edited your comment while I was typing)
I suspect the author of the report may have a better idea of what the report says than you do. again - if you need some literacy support, pm me. I will happy to provide some useful links.
Which shows what was said by other scientists was wrong. Warming was more wide spread than we were told. Now they are denying the truth because it does not fit that GW is from man
Which is not what previous reports said. This means warming was more wide spread that GW propagandists had said. This shows warming may have been more wide spread and now GW propagandists must spin this to deny the truth
I suspect he is under pressure to not reveal any truth that shows GW has been wrong. You show what an arrogant elitist hack you are. In your eyes only GW propagandists can be correct and even though it is seen they are trying to spin you still defend them
What is silly is you defending a scientists that is trying to denny what the report says. Their was wide spread warming the report shows that but now they want to spin it
I was hoping your problem was a lack of reading comprehension skills ... but it might be deeper: http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...nt-republicans-understand-climate-change.html
So you start a thread to show what an arrogant elitist you are. All that shows is you have no credibility and can not back up what you claim with facts. When you are wrong you claim those that challenge you are not as smart as you. that shows you are the one that is deceived. Now the GW propagandists claim if you disagree you have a mental defect LOL http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treated-says-professor/
well, you might want to read the book, or even chris mooney's article and you'd get an idea of how I think. I have been amazed at how stupid climate deniers are, but now that I understand that the republican brain makes people impervious to facts that they don't want to believe, I can see what is going on. I am not going to try and convince you of the truth any more. truth means nothing to people with the republican brain. any lie will do, as long as it supports your beliefs.
Ah, I see, people that do not believe the way you do must be stupid or uneducated. What arrogance you display.
They are now saying mentally defective http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treated-says-professor/
{{{{{{{{{{{{shrugs}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} You lot started the name calling with the ridiculous charges of "zealotry"
I think you should read the research and then draw your conclusions, which is what sensible people would do, rather than taking the opportunity to demonstrate that you have a republican brain, as you are doing here.
ummmm .... "aberrant sociological behaviour" is notthe same thing as mentally defective ..... but if you feel it is, I guess you can seek help.
Do you mean "tell lies" Look again. The paper that bloke posted said nothing about mental defectiveness. I wonder why he felt the need to lie like that? Why do you think?
Are you spreading lies again based on the stupid media articles you read? I thought you may have learnt your lesson back here: http://www.politicalforum.com/1061075405-post1.html where you were caught spreading about an article which deliberately misinterpreted a scientists work. You were shown on multiple occasions the scientists own statement that the article was misleading - yet you continued to try to spread the misinformation contained. And here you are - at it again. Now - I know that the blog you link to uses the word"sickness" - but they are lying to you. The paper being discussed says nothing of the sort. You really need to be a bit more discerning about what you read, so you don't continue to post silly lies like this. Everytime you get caught (as you always will) - it just makes whatever point you are trying to make sound very, very foolish. FYI: Here are the details of the paper being discussed: http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/n...break-cultural-inertia-climate-change-respons "We find a profound misfit between dire scientific predictions of ongoing and future climate changes and scientific assessments of needed emissions reductions on the one hand, and weak political, social or policy response on the other," Norgaard said. Serious discussions about solutions, she added, are mired in cultural inertia "that exists across spheres of the individual, social interaction, culture and institutions." It was linked to on your link. You have no excuse for blindly beliveing the crap in the headline and trying to spread misinformation like this.
No one has showed the misrepresentation. Even the scientists says he needs weeks to prove the misrepresentation
