Search results

That's a variant of the slippery-slope fallacy that people learned about in gradeschool. You may want to look it up.

Sigh. He's a physicist, he's not a climatologist, he didn't resign from the IPCC, he was already retired, and he didn't even resign from his university, he resigned from the APS and he has nothing to do with the IPCC.

What mankind is interested in is the trend since the start of the industrial revolution. Can you figure out why?

All you know is that you heard the word "fiasco" and so you're going to repeat it. Which is actually moderately entertaining for anyone who cares to learn the context of your crazy-ranting. It was an incorrect number hundreds of pages in in volume two of one of the IPCC reports, in a section...

Considering Bush added 0 (zero) new private sector jobs over eight years, I won't get too excited about Obama turning out to be not only figuratively but literally correct.

As much as I dislike Pelosi, she clearly was referring to economic benefits and it looks like she is right. Furthermore, you should be ashamed of your style of "out of context" quotes like this one and this kind of dirty politics. <img src...

Well that would be unscientific because it's a long term trend, however you could see which decades have been the warmest in the 120 year cycle and discern a trend from that. Kind of like a longer term moving average versus a short term moving average to discern yearly patterns of a stock. Not...

Oh, okay, so we're not using unemployment numbers then and we need to focus on employment numbers, on a month-to-month basis? Fair enough. The government laid off 179,000 people, which were subtracted from the numbers for September -- you're in favor of smaller government, right?

A zero-content rebuttal of Al-Jazeera? Well, yes. It's Al Jazeera. Come on, don't try and recycle the same old "Hey, you didn't recognize a graph once therefore global warming is false" or "Al Jazeera says the IPCC is nonsense therefore global warming is false" -- show us all the other...

Well you certainly can fill the screen. Wow, al Jazeera. Would that be the "Al Jazeera of Climatology?" Oh right, they don't have a journal of climatology because they're not climatologists. Will you cite the National Enquirer next? What about the Weekly World News? What does Batboy say...

Look, I'm sorry, but I've decided that I can't address all questions, only the good ones. Your question has no right or wrong answer, as it depends on the context of the "redistribution" and is more a reflection of your restricted thought processes than anything else.

Getting a straight answer out of you guys is almost impossible. I'm just asking if it's the raw unemployment rate that you guys care about or the rate of change of the unemployment rate (ie. delta).

According to NASA, the hottest year in 120 years was 1998. Then it was surpassed by 2002, the new hottest year on record. Then it was surpassed by 2003. Then It was surpassed by 2005. Then 2006 was the second warmest year on record, tied with 2007. Then 2009 tied 2007 for second warmest ever.

So if the unemployment rate rises drastically under his administration you'd crucify him with posts here? Like if it rises 80%, say, or is it the raw number that matters?

Hey, I'm a very INGENIOUS pawn! :) (And ad homs won't help you escape the burning fire of daylight that I'm subjecting you to.) Although you haven't convinced me that one incorrect number hundreds of pages in in volume two, about a topic not even covered in detail in volume 2, but that was...

And the unemployment rate remained unchanged, as well the BLS report only marginally changed any numbers. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm So does Obama "get credit" and "own" the unemployment rate holding stable instead of increasing?

Well they did play unfairly -- they actually phoned the guy and asked if he said this nonsense. LOL. That's like saying "Even IF the New York Post got this wrong..." There's nothing to refute. Nowhere on that slide does it refer to "consensus." And if by "Himalayan glacier fiasco"...

Yup, it's a reprint of "public blog", (!) and has already been contradicted by the person who was supposedly quoted. On to the next falsehood, Trader666! :) (Don't slow down now, I think you're gaining traction!) :) UN scientist refutes Daily Mail claim he said Himalayan glacier error...

See? It didn't even slow you down, you just recite another "selective" quotation. The problem is, that according to you he's lying now, which makes him a liar. Which means you just cited a liar. On to your next falsehood! What will it be next? We're all waiting in anticipation! :)...

Call it project management if you like (you're right, to a great extent it is). Find a programmer who can write system specifications and design and that's 9/10's of the battle. Pay him whatever he wants. The reason that this fellow had his job half finished and isn't happy is likely...