Served with - heck  - eat your name you idiot.

No, better yet, whine some more that noone wants you to "discuss" gorbull warming, or ask like a moron, "how do you expect us to discuss it?", when that's all we've been hearing from you wackos ever since the Gorbal carbon spewer thrust his made for morons movie on the USA and got his elite lib hate prize from the pinheads of tv parade.

 Yeah, what the hell is the matter with you people ? You are confronted by the discussion, the half of it that you don't like, that you don't agree with, and your response, instead of engaging in the discussion, is to whine " how do you expect us to discuss is if things are said that you don't agree with... "

 All I can say is you have to be one of the stupidest morons on the face of this earth. You encountered things you didn't agree with, and failed to discuss. IT'S YOU, DUMMY. ( I know you "feel" like your idiocies aren't wanted. I understand that. If you aren't given a warm lie to coddle your inner child,{ please share your thoughts, we are dying to hear your wisdom} it's as if your mouth was ripped from your body, and you "feel" silenced. I get it, you are a lame faggy lib whining sissy fool. I quite understand. You can't stand on the power of your thoughts and knowledge, you need a bubble of protection , a permanent anal kissing that tells you anything you say that is incorrect and wrong and foolish will not be challenged but instead be taken in as shedding light upon the learning experience... )

 But then, you idiot liberals have a twisted mentally deranged mind, so you MUST have that special protection.

 The discussion is ensuing, and you encounter opinions that you don't agree with, and your repsonse is " how can we possibly discuss this ?!!? "

 It never occurs to you cop-out pussyfooting retarded retreads that the answer is, to open your stupid yap and engage, instead of whining you can't say anything, or babbling on that you somehow aren't allowed to or haven't been able, have been prevented , etc. ad mysterium

 It's the same old liberally insane BS, where some of your favorite libtards get up on stage in front of thousands of raging lib fans, and quack out the big fat lie of the half decade for you turdbrains:

 " WE ARE BEING CENSORED AND ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK UP ! AND I HAVE ONE THING TO SAY TO THAT, BUSH LIED CHILDREN DIED SEXED UP INTELLIGENCE SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS NAZI WAR MONGER IDIOT CHILD DICTATOR. NOT IN OUR NAME!!!!!!"

 So you get your 120 decibel cheer, and then the very next sentence, the same idiot is crying that their freedom of speech has been taken away.

 So, when you eat your words, it will be immeasurably enjoyable. It will crush you moronic turdbrains as never before. You're all on a raging emotional binge of stupidity and hatred, and your vision is so clouded you cannot see the daylight.

It will be thrust upon you by nature itself, and your immense shame will never go away. It will finally do what George Bush and the other sane people have never been capable of doing. SHUTTING YOU UP.

 That of course won't be censorship, as I'm sure your tiny mind already started decieving you into thinking it so.

 That will be YOU - feeling so damned stupid, that you dare not open your yapper again, and as they say, remove all doubt.

 I sincerely look forward to that great event to come. 

Fu,  you came in the middle of a lot which has already been covered.  Check out the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle on BBC ch4.  Also, as to Al Gore with his energy usage at home 20X that of we peons (not to mention his footprint from jet travel) what else could he be but hypocritical?  AND then he wants us to buy shares in a company he is part owner of the aswage our guilt for carbon footprints?  Snakeoil!  We tire of the whole "concensus" lie, as there are way way way too many reputable scientists who disagree.   Want a true concensus 100% of scientists agree that temperature on Earth comes from the sun.  Check out CO2 is a lagging indicator Sun-cycles a leading indicator of warm cycles on earth.  Causes usually come before effects don't they?  Also remember when the hysteria was a coming ice age?

We don't advocate being irresponsible with the environment but yes we do get somewhat fed up with politicising an issue which is hardly settled scientifically.  As far as UN reports go no one who thinks critically would accuse the UN of producing unbias nonpolitical decrees

Curious, why was it whenever I saw depictions of the ozone hole over Antarctica, it was ALWAYS taking place in October? 

"Consensus opinion" - Um, consensus is a government thing, not a science thing. Unless, of course, you'd like me to re-start my science project.  The science project is the following: after going through a package of M&Ms, I am left with two red ones and two green ones.  How many total M&Ms do I have left? Now, before you answer, please note I need a consensus to tell me how many are left.

"Peer-reviewed scientists" - ALL "peer-review" is, and the ONLY thing it is, is an excuse for you and other GW religionists to stop critical thinking and allow others to critically think for you.  Sad.

Besides:

1) If the Kyoto Protocol was THE solution to man-made global warming/climate change/whatever it will be called tomorrow, why are China, Brazil, and India, among others, 100% exempt from it?

2) Why is tropical deforestation nowhere mentioned in the Kyoto Protocol?

3) Why aren't environmentalists campaigning to stop farming (you know, the most environmentally destructive activity mankind has engaged in)?

4) Why won't the environmentalists support the idea of increased reliance on nuclear power (works for France, as they get 78.5% of electricity from nukes)?

5) Why don't I hear all these guilt-ridden Leftists whining at the Chinese embassy or the nearest Chinese consulate over the fact that China will be the #1 emitter of greenhouse gases by 2015?  What, is pollution from China cleaner somehow?

6) Exit Glacier in Seward, AK has been melting since 1780.  What man-made activities caused it to start melting?

7) Why, after an active 2005 hurricane season, was last year's so damn quiet?

8) Why did it snow in Lisbon and New Delhi from 2005-2006?  Why did it snow in Johannesburg in July 2006?

9) Why did it snow south and east of San Antonio for Christmas 2004 (San Antonio rarely if EVER sees snow)?

10) Why did San Antonio and Houston, among other cities, get an ice storm in January 2007?

11) Why was the world's record temperature set in 1922?

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

Shoes, This is worth repeating.  It was directed at Chumly, who dodged its arguments, ceding the field of battle to me.

"NL207 Says:
April 5, 2007 - 20:06
Chumly, lets see if you've a shread of common sense at all.  Like some of he others on this board, my academic training is as a scientist.  I am going to do something here that is a legitimate engineering estimation technique and that should be enough to convince even you that these gobal warming alarmists deserve neither heed nor credence.  Generally, this technique is called a bounds analysis.  [See here, for a couple of course descriptions that teach this thinking.  I got 1.1 million hits on the search.  I just picked one of the first few. ]  It is intended to discover the maxima and minima of the range of some result over ths domain of its input.  It can be used in the reverse as well, given a range of values, estimate the domain of variability, which I will do here.

Some facts, all of which may be easily Googled.  (1)  the mean temperaure of the planet earth is 288 K.  (2)  The earth's atmosphere accounts for  greenhouse effect of about 33 degrees K, meaning that without its atmosphere, the mean surface temperature of the earth would be a frigid 255 degrees K.  (3)  The present concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is about 385 ppm.  (4)  Variously, Scientists claim that water vapour, that is, H2O, represents 60-95% of the greenhouse effect. the balance is attributable to an assortment of other greenhouse gases including CO2. (5)  the measured increase in mean surface temperature of the earth over the last century is agreed by science to be 0.6 degrees K.  (6)  Over the last century, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increased by approximately 35%

What we desire to do here is examine the maximum contribution Human activity might have made to the climate system.

Lets assume that ALL the change in global temperature observed in the last century was caused by CO2 increases,i.e., there were NO natural variations.

Lets also assume that changes in CO2 were the only significant factor in play, i.e., all the change can be blamed on CO2.

And last, lets assume that all the change in CO2 concentration can be blamed on human activity.

Under these asumptions, we see that a 35% increase in CO2 presumably caused a 0.6/33.0 or 1.8% change in the aggregate greenhouse effect.  This suggests that CO2 can be estimated to represent about (3*0.6)/33.0 of the aggregate greenhouse effect bfore the increase, or about 5.4%.  This number agrees very closely with one of the computations made and published by climate scientists that assessed water vapor as 90-95% of the greenhouse effect.  The climate scientists who suggest that water vapor is only 60-70% of the aggregate effect are likely in error, since their result is greatly at variance with observed data.  Interestingly, these are all pro-AGW climate scientists who place the water vapor contribution this low.

Now, Chumly, if you can't see the validity of these estimation techniques and are instead taken in by this junk science Gore and his allies are pedaling, then you are a colossal fool."

??  That is exactly what Al Gore and every other GW alarmist do!

When unusual weather occurs, its always explained as "global warming" these days.  Cold, hot, violent or calm, it does not matter.  The anomaly is always blamed on GW.