NikFromNYC

Talk about back woodsy...your web site DELETES users' comments after they wrote them but still need to sign up for an account. Then it merges all the paragraphs of a carefully-formatted comment into one big one. All I can say is that you small town types can't get away with fooling your readers any more. Look at alarmist news articles on any site these days that has everyday local readers. All it takes is for a single reader to send the link to the skeptical clearing house at http://tomnelson.blogspot.com and competent skeptics can show up and drop a few links and corrections that utterly contradict the usual alarmist nonsense. There *are* good arguments for global warming, actually. That's what's so funny. It's just that alarmists can't really state what they are since that would open the actual important topics up to debate! Namely, what is the sensitivity of climate to *any* temperature rise? Is it highly amplified? Alarmists claim it is. But none of them can claim there is a consensus about their claim rather than it being pure speculation on their part so far. Actual measurements are only now being hashed out. So far Lindzen's work on this seems to be headed for a correction of his claim of high negative feedback to slight positive feedback, and NOT the extreme positive feedback that alarmists plug into their computer models.

Why would we "believe" something that is in the future but utterly fails to show up in actual thermometer records going back 350 years? http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg Well, those only cover two continents, I guess, so it's not global. So let's check in on the global average which despite enough word-wide data back to 1850, only goes back to 1880: http://i49.tinypic.com/2mpg0tz.jpg Uh-oh...no unprecedented variation there either! Let's make sure: http://i48.tinypic.com/dy5a3m.jpg Er..."but it would have cooled without CO2", they say, because we are guilty of leaving all the lights on in the house at night and trickle charging our iPhones which we don't need since we are blithering idiots who can't enjoy a reverse racism joke about poor non-college graduate white "Southerners" who must after all be the demographic who make up the bulk of skeptics. That is along with the New Age types who believe in UFOs, ESP, crystal therapy and all manner of conspiracy. Oh, wait, those are the tree huggers. Hmmm....who might those skeptics *be*? Nerds? It can't be them since making fun of nerds is a losing strategy if you are no longer a teenager. I have news: it's the nerds. This nerd with a Ph.D. in chemistry who attended Columbia and Harvard wonder why your scientist (meteorologist) uses the phrase "becoming more acidic" when the correct phrase is "becoming less basic"? The ocean is not acidic. The ocean will never become acidic. Any "scientist" who misleads people like this has a severe problem with his moral compass. Did you ask your scientist (TV weatherman, actually, not a research scientist) if he is a creationist? He runs a church web site (http://www.asburymemorial.org). Don't get me wrong...it's quite healthy to incorporate faith-based belief systems into one's life. I'd just like to know if he really thinks all animal species really were loaded into a wooden boat, including the ones only found on the then-undiscovered continents of the Americas. I also wonder what he thinks about the need for a Reformation, to stop the church from selling indulgences to sin. I ask because carbon trading clearly does the same thing, which caused Jim Hansen to exclaim: "The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach – "goals" for emission reductions, "offsets" that render ironclad goals almost meaningless, the ineffectual "cap-and-trade" mechanism – must be exposed."