Search results

Ouch! I'm mortally wounded by that scathing retort. Do you guys get to drink the Kool-Aid before the hand-holding and singing of We Shall Overcome, or is it the refreshment for afterwards? (full recognition to Walter for that reference)

....And yet it is more than enough to keep you utterly speechless on the topic.

So I see that you've finally got it right and stopped your references to polar reversal as opposed to polar migration. Perhaps you were confused or perhaps attempting to redirect the conversation. In large part, you have already answered your own question (in part) in the above description...

... But, but, that can't be Darkbeaver. Gore and the IPCC scientists have graphs and links and statistics... They can't possibly be wrong!

So... No contribution to refute any of these claims - just boring? What a compelling argument

A very succinct and accurate analysis... I'm amazed that there are any people/groups that can't see this.

Perhaps you might consider diverting a portion of your research time towards understanding the english language. I notice that you emboldened the word solitary and not the word "this". the importance being that "this solitary factor" refers to man-made sources that are the largest focus by the...

As I clearly stated in my last post: A cause and a significant factor. You are deliberately ducking the question as you realize that you painted yourself in a corner. If you refuse to recognize that earlier comment and ask the question, all one can expect is a deflection of the issue as you...

The driver is a strawman? Do you believe that humanity is having a significant impact - and therefore is a cause - of global warming/climate change or not? So, the IPCC is promoting anthropegenic global warming as a "strawman" in this debate? I am not prepared to invest the time on the...

I've spoken to a number of people that believe polar migration is a significant contributor relative to this issue... I'm a little curious as to why you don't hear much reference to it.

The biggest losers in this circumstance are those scientists that are sincere and legitimate. Unfortunately, when a high profile organization that was considered the authority on the subject falls prey to unethical and fraudulent practices, it destroys any credibility that they ever had. One of...

Oh, I understand the data alright. In fact, I'll as far to say that I also understand that just because someone produces a graph or attaches the word "statistics" to a study does not necessarily mean that the information is worth anything... I read more than the stats or conclusions. I carefully...

Funny, really, particularly in light that your condemnation comes on the heels of your argument that the ideas of the journalist were supposedly as valid as that of a zoologist... Of course, the catch here is that they were the same person. Thanks for the info on averaging. Too bad it still...

The question is if anthropogenic sources are the driver for overall, observable climate change. If you are simply making the statement that anthropogenic sources actually exist (through modification of the carbon cycle) well, then no one can disagree can they? However, if you wish to...

Generating a theory and supporting models that have the capacity to explain all forms of causation is the challenge isn't it? If you are unable to explain past events then it is an absurdity to even attempt to define the phenomenon as being a problem let alone predict future outcomes.

You still don't get it do you? I left a hint for you below. Just as expected. Hollow explanations and no answers. Where are the graphs to explain the historical periods of glaciation, hmmmm? Seeing how you are reluctant to apply your logic to my question, I'll answer for you. You are...

Maybe this is news to you, but it is the IPCC that is the chief voice in attempting to forward this fraudulent agenda. You might want to familiarize yourself with this area prior to making naive statements The question is WHY is it warming. If it is a natural cycle, then there is no need to...

Apparently everyone except you. Are you aware of what this issue is really about? The eco-fascists would do well to consider this, wouldn't they? Are you saying that you have no confidence in the pro GW scientists? So, who says that the global mean temperature is supposed to be a static...

The entire movement is "chalk-full" of miscalculations and fraud... And yes, it does state that: "The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher." ...

Yes it does. It proves that the science behind the conclusions was unfounded, unsubstantiated and chalk-full of errors - so much so, that they were compelled to announce their ineptitude on a public basis