Nope.

__________________
McCain 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much."
"Oderint dum metuant"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

Like the "scientists" who profess to simply speak global warming into existence without use of known scientific procedure, they also presume to simply speak "discredit" into existence of those who oppose their claims.

The "discredited" scources opposing the global warming scam, are only "discredited" by the scammers themselves, and you "faithful" who require no proof of their claims. Their data is less inclusive than that of the growing number of honest scientists who are simply cast off as "discredited." That's exactly the point that makes global warming a "religion" rather than a science. Repeatability of proper scientific processes leading to consistent results is what determines science,
not a popular knee-jerk vote followed by mere verbal comdemnation for opposing opinions.

Where is your base data that's been denied to those opposing your "guru" Mann? Show the logic in simply disregarding all known data concerning Earth's history of climate change prior to mankind's existence, that disputes the human influence over weather. Show scientific logic in disregarding Mars' known climate changes in order to believe your scammers without question. And , of course, show how the changes in the Sun's radiation are but inconsequential to the "huge" effects of incandescent light bulbs in bringing about global climate change.

There are no answers to the above challenges anyone with common sense would require................ NONE. And gullible who accept this scam without question, will be left exposed for the fools you are, when this current scare tactic submerges back into oblivion right after Al Gore is again rejected by American voters.

The [b]good[/b] news for you gullible dupes though, is that I have a couple on NYC bridges for sale, along with some great New Orleans real estate. Now, line up with your checkbooks in your hands........... .

Trees are carbon scrubbers. They take in large amounts of carbon dioxide and in exchange produce oxygen for people and animals to breathe. Some of the carbons they can breathe in are also potential global warming gases (based on the quantities in the atmosphere). If there are a lot fewer trees, there are a lot more such gases in the atmosphere.

Truth-Defender, if you didn't know this, why on earth are you pretending you understand this debate? It is obvious from your posts that your mind is totally made up on this subject and since you aren't going to bother to look at the data you haven't bother to learn what the data means either.

My question for you, Truth-Defender, is that if man can destroy whole ecosystems (historical North Africa, for example), cause widespread desertification (the Sahara, for example), the permanent depletion of fish stocks (Spanish Atlantic, for example), wipe out whole species of plants and animals every single day of the year (see UN stats) , and spread pollutants all over the planet causing all sorts of health problems both to man and to many other species, why is it so hard for you to grasp the concept that our actions, en masse, could affect the temperature of the planet?

Because, as I've stated, no data has been offered by your side that includes the consideration of Earth's, Mars', and the Sun's documented history of broad temperature changes prior to human existence, or even now for that matter. Additionally, and I repeat, if mankind has caused climate change by our action, then mankind can reverse the climate change by our reverse action. Even the "scientist" perpetrators of the global warming scare say we cannot. That's logic you must disregard in order to join their "church."

Your post exemplifies the kind of heresay and "straw-man" precepts that don't exist factually, but are the premise for your argument. No proof exists of fewer trees in existence, only assumptions and claims that ignore that naturally ignited pre-human wildfires burnt unabated. There is no proof that increased CO2 content in our atmosphere causes higher temperatures or that it would be harmful, only more assumptions and claims...........in fact, there IS evidence that increases in CO2 generally follow temperature increases by an average of 800 years, indicating the opposite conditions of cause and effect claimed by you "true believers."

There is too much requirement for disregard of common sense for anyone rational to accept the money and power grab scam that requires us to ignore Earth's history of climate change, and simply accept incomplete and edited data designed to create the desired conclusion.

And the data in the IPCC report is not sufficient proof?

__________________
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Probably not. My mistake.

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

Rather than digesting propaganda on the issue, you could start with the science. The full 3rd IPCC report is available. The 4th one will be out within a few months.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

Do you "true believers" even know what the IPCC is and who the UN contracted to "research" the global warming question? Michael Mann, an analyst.....not even a scientist, that's who. The guy I've been describing and who is exposed along with his co-conspirators Raymond Bradley, and Malcom Hughes are the ones who edited the data to conform to their desired conclusion of man-made global warming. Actual "scientists" the scammers listed in their "consensus" have come forward stating their dismay at their analyses being altered to reflect a different conclusion than they actually have..............altered by guess who..........the IPCC's own Michael Mann and Co...........the authors of the IPCC report you fell for. They have refused to remove the names of scientists they listed in their faked "consensus," and only recently have done so in instances where forced by threat of lawsuits. Does that look like rational scientific procedure?


Raytri tried to disrespect the article I linked that summed up (I couldn't very well link entire books) the findings of actual scientists (not book-cooking analysists) opposing such non-scientific measures used to justify the IPCC report. The books containing the exposed fraud are at the end of the article and include "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and "Shattered Consensus" by Patrick Michaels.

Although some of the legitimate authorities find it easier to simply give the IPCC report a nod rather than endure the inevitable barrage of name-calling from the left, to date there has been ZERO corroboration of the IPCC report that's been verified by real scientists who re-traced all the steps used by Mann and his co-conspirators. NONE. Those who have, found vast inconsistencies with the "findings" in the report.

Now, how about the common sense I asked you about in excluding Earth's history of climate change from the "data."

You people remind me of the powers that be who demanded Galileo's complicity under threat of death for opposing their pre- determined "consensus."

This Michael Mann? Can't be since he's a scientist who's published over 80 peer-reviewed studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mann_(scientist)

This Fred Singer - a guy once paid by tobacco companies to "refute" smoking's link to lung cancer? I wonder what he's up to these days?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Si...cts_of_tobacco

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

Oh Noooo.............how can I possibly compete with Wikipedia? I surrender, I surrender .

Where is your proof of Singers being paid by tobacco companies? And do you think there was no lung cancer before tobacco was discovered?

Where are your responses to the common sense questions I pose on every post here? Why do you consider it "scientific" to disregard the history of Earth's climate changes the clearly show 1500 year cycles?

And where is the proof of at least one single real scientist following all of Mann's data and analytical procedures, is getting the same results? Do you know that when Mann's computer models are used in time-frames that have passed, the "predictions" the results miss the actual recorded data significantly? That's what happens with cooked up computer programs.

If you watch the news today, you will see non-scientist Algore beginning to call for immediate oppression or removal of freedom using the "data-free" scare-scam................and THAT's what this is all about.