George Will on global warming

"Oh, look, it's snowing. Well, that must means global warming is a fraud".

What a waste of skin.

Yawn, furiously pounding on his keyboard.

 

If Bush is the biggest fucking hero in the world,

then say hello to the biggest fucking idiot in the world.

 

Car and air unit long gone. I'll get to the others when I can.

 

That's not a nice thing to say about Gore's dog.

 

Because you consider everyone smarter than you a hack. Pretty makes 99% of the world hacks.

 

No, but I guarantee you a) Scaife's editor is a hack, and b) I'm smarter than he is.
So are half the people on this board.

 

Just like you, Fenian. You don't bother to read anything other than your search for some left-wing site that says something bad about the scientist who's said something against your agenda. Then you regurgitate that and think you've debunked something.

 

I rest my case.

 

I know it's pointless but I will tell you, again, that I've read Lindzen articles and Lomborg's book. Please name the people on the other side of the debate that you've read, as you said you had a week ago.
I'm smarter than you, too, ace. So is half the board. Life's tough.

 

Fine, now account for the periods before 1880 that were warmer than we are now. 0.8 degrees in 125 years. Yup, we really should panic. Except that we'll probably be 0.8 degrees cooler than now in about another 30 years, at which point you'll be back on the "Here comes an Ice Age" panic bandwagon.

Here's a hint for you. For their to be global warming, that would mean every year is warmer than the previous. That we were cooler in 1999 than 1998.

Yet while 1998 was a record breaker, 1999 and 2000 were not only cooler than 1998, they were cooler than 1990 and 1995. And 2003 and 2004 were both cooler than 2002.

Your own chart debunks global warming as a pattern.

And I love how your chart goes up and down and up and down and up and down right up to the present time, but then it's extrapolated to head straight up at a 45-degree angle from the present forward. Completely baseless scare tactic.

I do understand why you don't want both sides of the debate presented. When both sides are presented, you look rather silly.

 

Fenian, I have articles from your side shoved down my throat every day. Fortunately, I have common sense. I look at their information and can figure out whether or not it makes sense. You look at the author's name and dismiss the information. Even when the guy is a top professor at MIT or the first PhD climatologist in Canada.

And you dismiss the Pitt Trib article as though all of Ball's answers to the questions were made up by the columnist. Do you suppose Ball would have made a stink if his answers weren't reported accurately?

And you have the typical problem of a liberal. You think you're a lot smarter than you are. Actually, you feel you're a lot smarter than you are. You don't really think much at all.

 

While all of us are lacing up our sneakers to race three miles to the goalposts you just moved, perhaps you should address the initial point: That one of the claims your so-called expert made is that surface temperatures are cooler now than in the 1930s. That clearly is not true.

And that fact that a planet's six warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998 is not evidence of a warming pattern? On which planet?

This is barely English, so I can't address this. The tables I referenced — average temperature by year and decade — come up when you click the link, with easy-to-understand numbers. I see no ups, downs, 45-degree angles and nothing about the "present forward," so I have no idea what you're talking about.