What in the sentence I wrote discusses taxes? It's below for reference.

"Why does it take sooo long for conservatives to get it? They denied that the Earth traveled around the sun. They denied a round Earth. They denied existence of dinosaurs. Many still deny existence of man other than modern man. You name it, they denied it."

__________________

Accurate Definition of Liberal

My political compass
Home page
Progressivism always wins in the long run. Always!

And this refers to thousands of scientist around the world - scientists from places like Australia, Japan, UK, Russia, Norway, Sweden etc?

It also seemingly refers to the over 180 countries that have been convinced of the problem and have signed Kyoto.

Biggest scam in history then

__________________

Greenhouse gases: Any gas that, by an accident of chemistry, happens to absorb radiation of a type that the Earth, by an accident of history, would like to lose. …

There is only one constant law: The perversity of the universe tends to a maximum

I seem to remember the Chicken Little Scientists squawking about the coming Ice Age back in 1974. When there's some "Real" evidence the warming is man made, that doesn't include the phrase "very likely", let us know.

__________________

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." - Ronald Reagan

Many of those countries also brought us 2 world wars in the last 100 years. Sorry if I doubt their judgment.

__________________

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." - Ronald Reagan

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/..._Print_SPM.pdf

Aww bummer another talking point bites the dust.

A widely-held right-wing myth...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-...s-in-1970s.htm

What the science said:

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

__________________
"You have shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington."

- President Barack Obama, 8/28/08

"To the average American who’s struggling, we’re in some other stratosphere. We’re the party of Big Business and Big Oil and the rich."

- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R)

Budget surplus inherited by Bush: $236 billion (CBO, 2000)

Budget deficit inherited by Obama: $1,667 billion (CBO projection, 3/2009)

More than two-thirds of temperature sensors used to estimate global warming are located near artificial heating sources such as air conditioning vents, asphalt paving, or buildings. These sources are likely to introduce artifacts greater than 2 °C into the temperature record.

Look... the Russians already figured out how to cool the planet by seeding a ton of sulfur particulates in the air.

Volcanoes will erupt, the temperature will fall it will rise. Man has little to no provable impact.

If you want to do something about CO2 start pumping ocean water into the deserts and plant grass.

This is stupidity and just an ideological attack by authoritative statists and the willing idiots that follow them.

__________________
"...more bureaucratic government "jobs" that are nothing but a drain on an already sick economy." - Pollycy

"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." - James Dale Davidson

Another long refuted denier cult myth.

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data based on faulty analyses, studies find

By Ker Than
updated 2:51 p.m. PT, Thurs., Aug 11, 2005

For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data.

"But most people had to conclude, based on the fact that there were both satellite and balloon observations, that it really wasn't warming up," said Steven Sherwood, a geologists at Yale University and lead author of one of the studies.

Oops!
Sherwood examined weather balloons known as radiosondes, which are capable of making direct measurements of atmospheric temperatures.

For the past 40 years, radiosonde temperature data have been collected from around the world twice each day, once during the day and once at night.

But while nighttime radiosonde measurements were consistent with climate models and theories showing a general warming trend, daytime measurements actually showed the atmosphere to be cooling since the 1970's.

Sherwood explains these discrepancies by pointing out that the older radiosonde instruments used in the 1970's were not as well shielded from sunlight as more recent models. What this means as that older radiosondes showed warmer temperature readings during the day because they were warmed by sunlight.

"It's like being outside on a hot day—it feels hotter when you are standing in the direct sun than when you are standing in the shade," Sherwood said.

Nowadays, radiosondes are better insulated against the effects of sunlight, but if analyzed together with the old data—which showed temperatures that were actually warmer than they really were—the overall effect looked like the troposphere was cooling.

The discrepancy between surface and atmospheric measurements has been used by for years by skeptics who dispute claims of global warming.

"Now we're learning that the disconnect is more apparent than real," said Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and a lead author of another of the studies.

Argument evaporates
According to Santer, the only group to previously analyze satellite data on the troposphere -- the lowest layer in Earth's atmosphere -- was a research team headed by Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in 1992.

"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more accurate."

The Alabama researchers introduced a correction factor to account for drifting in the satellites used to sample Earth's daily temperature cycles.

But in another Science paper published today, Carl Mears and Rank Wentz, scientists at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, examined the same data and identified an error in Spencer's analysis technique.

After correcting for the mistake, the researchers obtained fundamentally different results: whereas Spencer's analysis showed a cooling of the Earth's troposphere, the new analysis revealed a warming.

Using the analysis from Mears and Wentz, Santer showed that the new data was consistent with climate models and theories.

"When people come up with extraordinary claims -- like the troposphere is cooling -- then you demand extraordinary proof," Santer said. "What's happening now is that people around the world are subjecting these data sets to the scrutiny they need."

© 2009 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)



So sary, prove global warming isn't a huge problem, and see if we can't refute your 'proof'. C'mon little dude, show us all why you're so convinced.

The way you put it makes it seem you still think the Earth is flat. LOL.

Beyond that you're just being absurd if you think it wasn't really a "FACT" that the Earth was round until it was "proven".

"fact: noun
1 : something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality"

Even besides the fact that you still seem to think the world is flat, your whole statement is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Global warming and the climate changes that it is producing are very real and scientifically well observed and will cause great human suffering in the decades and centuries to come and those are facts that certainly don't depend on ideologically blinded, scientifically illiterate denier cultists accepting them as "FACT".

__________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." --Noam Chomsky

Actually what your article is really arguing is that the data from the past is not reliable at all. Couple that with the current sensors being located near air conditioning vents and other heat generating elements there is no real case to be made on "the data".

__________________
"...more bureaucratic government "jobs" that are nothing but a drain on an already sick economy." - Pollycy

"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." - James Dale Davidson

"This is stupidity" and that pretty much sums up your post.

6 December 2004
The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island

There are quite a few reasons to believe that the surface temperature record - which shows a warming of approximately 0.6°-0.8°C over the last century (depending on precisely how the warming trend is defined) - is essentially uncontaminated by the effects of urban growth and the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. These include that the land, borehole and marine records substantially agree; and the fact that there is little difference between the long-term (1880 to 1998 ) rural (0.70°C/century) and full set of station temperature trends (actually less at 0.65°C/century). This and other information lead the IPCC to conclude that the UHI effect makes at most a contribution of 0.05°C to the warming observed over the past century.

More recently two papers have sought to show directly that the effect is minimal. David Parker in a recent paper in Nature, said:

Urban heat islands occur mainly at night and are reduced in windy conditions. Here we show that, globally, temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development.

The reasoning behind this is that the major cause of urban heat islands is the reduced cooling that occurs at night when the “view to space” of the surface is blocked by buildings. In more rural areas, cooling can be stronger. This is more likely to occur in calm conditions, when air near the surface is less well mixed with air higher up. Since the UHI effect is reduced in windy conditions, if the UHI effect was a significant component of the temperature record, then we would see a different rate of warming when observations are stratified by calm or windy conditions. The absence of such an effect (which is what Parker finds) is, conversely, evidence of a minimal UHI effect on the record.

The Parker paper, however, is very brief and recent and has not had time to be fully tested by the scientific community. A paper by Peterson (2003) is of interest because it has been out for a while and is more comprehensive. It agrees with Parker. The paper, “Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found” published in the Journal of Climate finds that the effects of the urban heat island may have been overstated and that “Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures.”. This was done by using satellite-based night-light detection of urban areas, and more thorough homogenisation of the time series (with corrections, for example, for the tendency of surrounding rural stations to be slightly higher, and thus cooler, than urban areas). As the paper says, if its conclusion is accepted, then it is necessary to “unravel the mystery of how a global temperature time series created partly from urban in situ stations could show no contamination from urban warming”. The main conclusion is that micro- and local-scale impacts dominate the meso-scale impact of the urban heat island: many sections of towns may be warmer than rural sites, but meteorological observations are likely to be made in park “cool islands”.

The evidence points to a warming of about 0.6-0.8°C over the past century and a neglible effect on this from the UHI. While some ‘contrarians’ appear determined not to accept this finding, the evidence they cite appears thin indeed compared with the published research.

References:

Parker, D.E., Large-Scale Warming is not Urban, Nature 432, 290, doi:10.1038/432290a, 2004.

Peterson, T.C., Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found, Journal of Climate, 16, 2941-2959, 2003.

__________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." --Noam Chomsky