I saw this yesterday and relished every word. It still sounds good today. I love it when a plan comes together, or Als' falls apart.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

So many Gorolytes in one place(Gargoyles are them grotesque statues spewing rain waters from roof through their mouth making a gargling sounds) I find the word Gorolytes is a perfect fit for these Twits.

I could watch it I guess but Al Gore is such a Stomach turner and I Have to have breakfast.

The Liberals have become what they hate.

It appears that scientists, in Europe, are leading the way in research that disputes the "consensus" opinions being presented.  I have no reason to believe there aren't scientists, in the U.S., who disagree with many of the predictions being made by the Gorebal Warming people but, it appears, they are under unique pressures, such as having their funding pulled, if they speak out.  Apparently, in other countries, the truth counts more than consensus.

The question I ask, is will the truth come out before Gore is successful in destroying the economies of the world with his policy endeavors.  As was noted, in some media outlets today, Sen. John Dingell is preparing to send a carbon tax bill out for consideration, as a means of showing people just what the fight, against AGW, is going to cost them, in real money.  Are Americans ready to pay this price, based on the specious science being presented at this time?  Somehow, I doubt it.

Never argue with an idiot.  They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Even in the face of this new research data, the alarmists are still blaring their horns.

"...although some environmentalists warn it might get even hotter".

Look at how some warn that it might get hotter. Wow! All speculation; nothing to back it up other than someone's opinion.

"...although Willerslev stressed that the findings do not contradict the basic premise that the earth's temperature is rising to worrisome levels, with gases emitted by industry, cars, and other human activity playing a big role"

Two points: The data show that it's been much warmer in the past, so how in the world is this "worrisome"? I would clasify it as "natural", instead. And, what evidence is there that human activity is playing a big role, especially since there were no humans around during the last warming period 120,000 years ago?

These people don't ever give up in the face of evidence, facts, history, and common sense, do they?

The Canadian research is actually worrying about a coming global
cooling to earth based upon the silt records in British Columbia on the
long term solar cycles as in a minnie ice age is due in the next
decades.

I was watching Jeopardy the other week and one of GlobAL
Gore, 1000 volunteers he sent out to spread the myth was on and Alex
Trebec mentioned about the ice sheets thickening and yet he said, "I
still believe in global warming".

These idiots can see
scientific fact and still chant the myth. Trebec has an excuse, but
when you get money grubber "professors" like Galen McKinley out of
Wisconsin "refuting" facts from climatologists due to the fact she is
making a huge salary living "studying" how Lake Superior affects global
warming it is nothing but a sham exposed.

The University of
Wisconsin gets funding by propagating the myth. These European
"scientists" went to Greenland knowing they would find melting and gee
when they got there they found out they were being lied to. What is
interesting in they unlike Galen McKinley actually reported the data
instead of repressing it or going on lying about global warming.

If you notice ALL of the data coming in shows exactly the opposite of global warming.

I will share with the readers my findings in that the sun is actually
heating as the Canadians have found, but it is not cosmic rays alone as
they found but the sun is warming on a bandwidth science has not looked
at yet. This bandwidth resembles a microwave in radiating only the
liquids in a bowl, but not the bowl. This is partly why the ice sheets
are "melting" in the frozen areas. Their explanation is complicated too.

This bandwidth radiation of liquids is causing a slight increase in glacial
flow and a weakening of the ice. This is what is causing the ice sheets
to break off.

See there is no such thing as green house gases
heating anything as it is only water other liquids or mists which are
capable of holding heat. The term is holding heat as they can not
generate heat. All they can do is absorb as much solar heat as the day
allows and immediately start cooling in the night.

NASA is the
place which started this green house gas nonsense in trying to explain
why Venus is "so hot". For the reality of money grubbers like Galen
McKinley and those who never considered it, here are the facts:

Mercury is hot. It is close to the sun. It has no atmosphere.

Venus is hot. It is close to the sun. It has an atmosphere.

Earth is mild. It is perfectly situated by God to the sun. It has an atmosphere.

Mars is cold. It is far away from the sun. It has a thin atmosphere.

Jupiter and Saturn are cold. They are far from the sun, but have thick atmospheres.

In all of the above, it is position from the sun which dictates how hot a
planet is. Jupiter and Saturn being massive and having all of those
gases should be infernos collecting solar radiation and are not. That
blows green house gases completely out of the water as it is the sun
which warms and water is a simple moderation factor.
As I have
written of, the earth is a perfect "body". The atmosphere and oceans
"breathe" and they are like a skin. Right now because of this radiant
solar energy the earth is naturally "sweating" putting more vapor in
the atmosphere NOT TO HEAT THE PLANET, but to cool it. This vapor
moving around naturally increases the core center thickness of glaciers
and is what they are finding. It is though not an ice age event just a
gliche of more vapor.

When a true ice age event occurs, then by
natural means ice thickness increases as the atmosphere rids itself of
sheilding vapors and allows more sun into heating the earth. This is a
remarkable system God created in dealing with moderation of solar
activity.

Now I am not going to win a Nobel Prize which I should
for what God has placed in plain sight as here am I not taking millions
trying to set up a scheme which to destroy Republican forms of
government by filling the pockets of banking cartels so the middle
class has no money or power. All of the above is correct though and
should be awarded the Nobel as it is the first complete explanation of
planet earth's symbiotic moderation.

I do though believe that there is going to be a solar spike of massive radiant heating in the
near future as the frequency of axis shift of the entire solar zone is
about to move into a new cosmic grid. That is something governments
should be investing billions in NOT to stop it as nothing can, but to
provide seven year stockpiles of food, advanced shelter housing to deal
with this spike and the reserves of genetic materials. That is where
the money should be invested and is where screaming masses of people
are going to hopefully haul the Al Gores and Galen McKinley's before
Congress demanding why all that money was wasted on a scheme when
measures to help people could have been in place.

This is the explanation you are not hearing, but it is the Newton truth in God science.

agtG 245

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Interesting how global warming skeptics seem to find it necessary to argue against every single aspect of the global warming mechanism. Here is a list of some arguments I have seen presented on Newsbusters (by articles or posters):

1. Increasing solar irradiance is causing global warming (just look at the other planets).
2. Increasing temperature causes carbon dioxide release, so carbon dioxide does not cause temperature increase.
3. Carbon dioxide levels actually fluctuate wildly naturally (see the Beck paper), so today's level is not high by historical standards.
4. Carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.
5. If the Earth were to warm up, the consequences would not be that bad (ice caps would not melt).
6. Temperature measurements are not reliable: we don't really know if the Earth is warming.
7. Most of the increase in carbon dioxide levels is not caused by humans.
8. Carbon dioxide represents such a small fraction of the atmosphere: it just can't be responsible for warming.
9. "the sun is warming on a bandwidth science has not looked at yet" (wtf?)

In many cases, just one of these points would be enough to kill the theory (say, if carbon dioxide levels have not really gone up). But you guys are trying to kill every single aspect of the theory, which is really over-doing it. For global warming theory to be right, almost every mechanism in the theory must be right, but for it to be wrong, just one mechanism being wrong is probably enough. I find it rather implausible that scientists would not have gotten at least something right.

The problem is that many of the arguments I see here are in contradiction with others. For instance, if the sun is warming the planets, then the Earth should be warming, right? But no, the Earth is not really warming because our temperature measurements are bad. Or, warming won't melt the ice caps, but then why are the ice caps on Mars melting (which is our evidence for increased solar irradiance)?

My point is these arguments as a whole are not coherent, and many of them are completely unnecessary. Yet for some reason, they are perpetuated. My guess would be if a truly valid argument existed it would be quickly latched on to, and the others dropped. For now though, since you really have no good argument, you might as well keep flinging these ones.

And I quote:

The basis for the media's unfair attacks on Bush's intelligence is his 30-year-old Yale College transcript (purloined last fall and published by The New Yorker). Yet The Washington Post's subsequent revelation of Gore's unimpressive academic record has done little to alter the media's false portrayal of Gore as ''the smartest kid in the class.'' It is a record that is worth reviewing, if only to debunk the myth of Gore as a serious student.

Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. ''In his sophomore year at Harvard,'' the Post reported, ''Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale.'' Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of ''Inventing Al Gore,'' he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard).

But whereas the liberal press has described Bush's college days as a time of misspent youth, media accounts of Gore's undergraduate years are grossly fawning. (The New York Times: ''As Mr. Bush was frolicking around Yale, a young man named Al Gore was studying at Harvard''; ''Harvard nurtured the part of [Gore] that is in love with the world of ideas.'' The New Republic: ''At Harvard, Gore set himself formidable intellectual challenges.'')

Jennifer C. Braceras is an attorney and research fellow at Harvard Law School. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.