Global Warming becomes heliocentric. AGW shoved aside.

[_Buffalo]

There is no closed case. Mann, one of the most egregious scientific frauds in the history of modern Western science, was cleared of being a fox by other foxes.

I can't imagine why people think you're anti-intellectual :D

[_Brackite]

Some real science. AGWers are fast becoming the new flat earthers.

I don’t really think that I believe in that statement. (I am mostly agnostic when it comes to the issue of anthropogenic global warming.) What I don’t believe in is the idea that reducing carbon dioxide emissions are going to be able to significantly reduce global warming. The State of California, back in September of 2006, Passed the "Global Warming Solutions Act" Bill. That Law calls for a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Back in September of 2006, when that law was Passed, California had an Unemployment rate of just 4.8%. Now California has an Unemployment rate as high as 12%, which is 2.9% higher than the National Unemployment rate. Global Warming Laws that hurt the economy are Not good. And Plus, Carbon Dioxide is Not a Pollutant.



California Unemployment:
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/california/


CO2 is Not a Pollutant: Debunking a Global-Warming Myth:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/12/1037






Edited To Add:



Now California has an Unemployment rate as high as 12.1%, which is 3% higher than the National Unemployment rate.

[_bcspace]

Is the report inaccurate? Do tell. Did you read the CERN release?

Yes, it is.

How so?

[_moksha]

There are no "melting icecaps." This is fantasy, and that does not bode well for the credibility of those who make these kinds of bizarre and easily refuted claims.

Why then is the Ross Ice Shelf shrinking and the glaciers retreating?

[_Morley]

Is the report inaccurate? Do tell. Did you read the CERN release?

Yes, it is.

How so?

Let's see. It was September One when I responded to your post that began "Some real science." Naturally, as it's month-and-a-half later, I had to go back to refresh my brain about what I had against said article. I didn't get past the opening page in the science section where the lead at 6:00pm MDT on October 19 is:

Vegas man begs web for $1m to fix gigantic scrotum 'A huge watermelon encased in a bandage'. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/science/)

I'll be honest, BC. I don't have it in me to hack my way through the original global warming article again. It may be all that you think it is. I'm guessing (both from where it's nested, and my earlier reaction) that it's not.

[_bcspace]

Let's see. It was September One when I responded to your post that began "Some real science." Naturally, as it's month-and-a-half later, I had to go back to refresh my brain about what I had against said article. I didn't get past the opening page in the science section where the lead at 6:00pm MDT on October 19 is:

Vegas man begs web for $1m to fix gigantic scrotum 'A huge watermelon encased in a bandage'. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/science/)

I'll be honest, BC. I don't have it in me to hack my way through the original global warming article again. It may be all that you think it is. I'm guessing (both from where it's nested, and my earlier reaction) that it's not.

That means you actually didn't read the CERN release as you had claimed. The link I gave in the OP still works and it includes the relevant links to the CERN scientific papers. I even posted some quotes from them on the mormondialogue board. Since they are readily available and I've given the directions to them, if you can't address the CERN papers directly, your claim is null and void.

AGW is dead either by the CERN research, the hockey stick data fiasco, the bogus data which resulted in the late 90's correction, or any number of results from valid scientific research. Notice I'm not saying there is no GW. I am saying there is no evidence for AGW and lots of evidence against. The CERN research destroys the error in correlation of the CO2 notion.

[_Morley]

Let's see. It was September One when I responded to your post that began "Some real science." Naturally, as it's month-and-a-half later, I had to go back to refresh my brain about what I had against said article. I didn't get past the opening page in the science section where the lead at 6:00pm MDT on October 19 is:

Vegas man begs web for $1m to fix gigantic scrotum 'A huge watermelon encased in a bandage'. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/science/)

I'll be honest, BC. I don't have it in me to hack my way through the original global warming article again. It may be all that you think it is. I'm guessing (both from where it's nested, and my earlier reaction) that it's not.

That means you actually didn't read the CERN release as you had claimed. The link I gave in the OP still works and it includes the relevant links to the CERN scientific papers. I even posted some quotes from them on the mormondialogue board. Since they are readily available and I've given the directions to them, if you can't address the CERN papers directly, your claim is null and void.

AGW is dead either by the CERN research, the hockey stick data fiasco, the bogus data which resulted in the late 90's correction, or any number of results from valid scientific research. Notice I'm not saying there is no GW. I am saying there is no evidence for AGW and lots of evidence against. The CERN research destroys the error in correlation of the CO2 notion.

Really? The CERN research doesn't claim that "there is no evidence for AGW and lots of evidence against." That's a claim forwarded by you and your bizarre science site.