to believe those socialist bureaucrats, an their false propaganda about science and nature, one surely need to be a headless.

Science and nature are obviously free, yet the socialists using them to purport their means need to start think, otherwise they may be forced to think that why did they accepted their own sacrifice for the benefit of none.

You have not said even a single scientific word about global warming. I give no importance to the NASA. its worthless. Why? because it is conglomerate of ruffians.

Try science, try objective science, say what warms the globe?

I will than refute it scientifically at present you push off NASA links, which is not scientific organization it is socialistic government controlled organization.

Try your all scientific efforts to say that CO2 can cause global warming and I will put my scientifc reasons that why CO2 cannot cause global warming. Be scientific. Do not push links, push arguments, scientific arguments and than you will get scientific answers.

otherwise put your socialistic creed out of here.

All socialist/environmentalists are human haters. Its not only you dear. But you see, Humanity is much more strong than your hate. I do hate every human hater, no two talks about it.

You can keep waiting for the melting of glaciars throughout your life or you can keep waiting for denying any electricity any fuel to poor throughout your life

I would do neither. Unless you don’t talk logic. Unless you don’t talk specific science, the specific claims made, there is no point responding to rants.

“Human Hater”? Do you see how much hatred is filled in each of your posts here?
.-= Gubbi´s last blog ..Third Party Batteries and Power Adapters on Dell Laptops. =-.

I guess there is nothing more left to debate.

Good! And yes Environmentalism and socialism are Synonyms.

You can keep waiting for the melting of glaciars throughout your life or you can keep waiting for denying any electricity any fuel to poor throughout your life human hater.

About my arguments being scientific or not, you see, its not me who has to provide any scientific argument, its you who have to provide any argument for your myth of global warming.

I will than refute it scientifically at present you push off NASA links, which is not scientific organization it is socialistic government controlled organization.

Try your all scientific efforts to say that CO2 can cause global warming and I will put my scientifc reasons that why CO2 cannot cause global warming. Be scientific. Do not push links, push arguments, scientific arguments and than you will get scientific answers.

Otherwise, do not try to push your socialistic creed here.

You just conclude on things and reject everything that doesn’t agree with it. Just because science doesn’t agree with your “libertarian” view doesn’t mean it is bogus.

Whenever you read something from your great “libertarian” scientists, do look around to see what the opposition says about it. And look for logic, not beliefs.

Global Warming, Environmentalism, Socialism are synonyms?

I guess there is nothing more left to debate.
.-= Gubbi´s last blog ..Third Party Batteries and Power Adapters on Dell Laptops. =-.

http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/ipcc_scientist_disputes_global_warming_hype

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

http://www.globalwarminghype.com/

Religious people, who quote bible in their scientific books and “environmentalism” means “pagans” taking over the world.

I never read anything from any religious leader about global warming or against it. Whatever I know, I discovered, I read is only scientific, it is from the leading scientists who are against the global warming hype!

About your socialistic roots, if I see that in you and I tell you the truth, it doesn’t make an attack. And I don’t restrict my self with these funny ideas like ad-hominom or whatever,. I guess I do not know what it means, nor I want to know. Do repeat any further socialistic trivial here and do hear further truth.

About “Environmentalism means pagans” ohh well they may be true in one sense, Hinduism and helenism both are pagan in character. But i do not think that environmentalism is paganistic in nature, it is Socialistic and nothing else. Environmentalism is socialism and global warming is another aid for keynesianism.

The religion to which I was born is Hinduism and it supports the irrational talks of global warming, I became Atheist after I took birth.

Same here. Have you cared to look at the people whose articles you believe in? Religious people, who quote bible in their scientific books and “environmentalism” means “pagans” taking over the world.

You screaming socialist socialist at me, does little. It is not true and it has nothing to do with the topic. Despite having debated for so long, you keep breaking it’s basic rule: “don’t shoot the messenger, no ad hominem arguments.”

Your rest of the rant is incoherent. Do you really want to get your point across?
.-= Gubbi´s last blog ..Third Party Batteries and Power Adapters on Dell Laptops. =-.

Religious zealots over scientists? Come on.

Where did you see any reference to any religious zealot in any of my article?

I put independent libertarian true scientist much above these socialist collectivist environmentalist bull crap like you.

What a ****! Asia an Europe makes Eurasia.

Sorry. My mistake. That was quite stupid.

Siberian tundra suffered lowest temperture in last three decades, the glaciars grew fast. Himalayan glaciars grew fast, Himalayan glaciars are growing since last 30 years continuously, IPCC said they will vanish in 2035, now they say they will vanish, date is unknown. Everybody knows that Himalaya will vanish, they are not eternal. even Sun is not eternal, it has a life.

These things don’t change the fact that there has been global warming trend. You need to backup your claims with sources.

Religious zealots over scientists? Come on.
.-= Gubbi´s last blog ..Third Party Batteries and Power Adapters on Dell Laptops. =-.

Funny that a rational person like you, prefers the agenda of religiously motivated right wing(they need to establish the truth of bible), to the scientists.

The religion to which I was born is Hinduism and it supports the irrational talks of global warming, I became Atheist after I took birth. I have nothing to say about Bible, What I say is all you environmentalist socialist are a curse to humanity.

And NASA is nothing but another forgery of you socialists. its necessary to keep government out of the realms of Science otherwise you conspirators will keep Distorting science. You distorted religion too to meet your ends. nothing better can be expected from the socialists.

You hadn’t included Eurasia earlier.

What a crap! Asia an Europe makes Eurasia. Eurasia means siberia and other parts of russia. when I said Europe and Asia suffered coldest, it meant Eurasia included. Siberian tundra suffered lowest temperture in last three decades, the glaciars grew fast. Himalayan glaciars grew fast, Himalayan glaciars are growing since last 30 years continuously, IPCC said they will vanish in 2035, now they say they will vanish, date is unknown. Everybody knows that Himalaya will vanish, they are not eternal. even Sun is not eternal, it has a life.

Second thing is, America, Asia, Eurasia, Europe, represents 70% of world

You hadn’t included Eurasia earlier. Anyway, you are still talking about weather and not climate trends.

2009 warmest year on record in the southern hemisphere.
and second warmest overall. 2008 was the coldest in this decade.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

So what is NASA by the way? A government run lively *****?

Funny that a rational person like you, prefers the agenda of religiously motivated right wing(they need to establish the truth of bible), to the scientists. Just because they are government hating and gun loving, doesn’t mean everything they talk is sensible. When this article was published, NASA was funded by Republican government, who would pay any amount, and go to any lengths, if you can just put a dent on global warming theory. So, if it were really controlled by government, and not scientific, then NASA shouldn’t have published this report. Also, there is no “believing” needed. It is science. The same result is published in any of the climate research organization website you visit. So, yes it is peer reviewed. Also, no one in the “denier” camp disputes this.

It seems to me that you just want to be right. You want to believe. Stumps me.
.-= Gubbi´s last blog ..Third Party Batteries and Power Adapters on Dell Laptops. =-.

It was unnecessary to include “all other climatologists”

In fact it was NEceSSARY, that gang of environmentalists included you too. IPCC obviously hold much more worth than that another fradulent gang of NASA. So what is NASA by the way? A government run lively bitch? Why should you believe on that? Where are the peer reviews for the NASA’s report? Why should not you believe on Government aided economical journals right from the pen of Paul Krugman?

You must realize that 2009 was an year of El Nino, it should have been very hot even without the hype of global warming, but it was cooler, and not cooler, it was the coldest since the 1980′s.

Second thing is, America, Asia, Eurasia, Europe, represents 70% of world, the other 30% also suffered cold, not record breaking though. Even an El Nino year was cold, it was because of global cooling, advent of iceage

Enjoy the chutzpah of Mr. R.K pachaury and IPCC and all other climatologist environmentalists.

It was unnecessary to include “all other climatologists” there. Also, too much is being made out of the Himalayan error, considering, it was not included in the IPCC summary given to policy makers. The IPCC WG2 (second volume), did contain some activist type messages, some unsubstantiated. That doesn’t mean, the entire effort is bogus. It is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. True, the mistake shouldn’t have happened. True, Pachauri should be criticized for the mistake. True, the IPCC process needs to be reexamined. Nothing beyond that.

You must also take a note that 2009 was the coldest year in the current decade with record cold in US, Asia and Europe.

2 mistakes:
1. Climate not same as weather.
2. Global temperatures should be mentioned, not just within US, Asia and Europe.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
.-= Gubbi´s last blog ..Third Party Batteries and Power Adapters on Dell Laptops. =-.

Interestingly, Pachauri also refused to put a date to when the Himalayan glaciers would actually melt.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/IPCCs-credibility-has-increased-Pachauri/articleshow/5493066.cms
Enjoy the chutzpah of Mr. R.K pachaury and IPCC and all other climatologist environmentalists.

You must also take a note that 2009 was the coldest year in the current decade with record cold in US, Asia and Europe.
Lol yes that record cold was the effect of global warming.

Man Made Global Warming Alert! Record Cold Grips Europe, North America and Asia
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2010/01/man-made_global_1.php

http://yelnick.typepad.com/politick/2009/10/us-temperatures-cooling-at-striking-rate.html

University Scientists involved with IPCC are again avoiing to publicize the data regarding the scandolous ClimateGate. The false report on Himalayan range is not the thing, thing is the scanal going on the name of “politically correct science” which obviously is evidenceless and ethically wrong.
University scientists in climategate row hid data
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7088055/University-scientists-in-climategate-row-hid-data.html

And ohh yea, these scandals aren’t of 1999, they are of 2009. But that doesn’t matter, even in 1999, IPCC alongwith all these environmentalist climatologist fucktards was a scandalous gang.

Also when a professor at African university says something and another professor at University of London endorses it it is peer review, no matter you realize it or not.

Thats right. It is peer review. But what when 5 other professors independently come out against that? And publish their arguments, which is again referred to by several other researchers in their papers.

Second thing is, the issue of Himalayan glaciar is not alone every second apocalyptic warning by IPCC has been proven mallacious, including the extinction of 40% Amazonian jungles, that report was taken from a WWF report by a journalist who is an enviornmentalist. IPCC copied it and presented it as its report.

It is true of the 2 incidents that you cite. Not all of the claims made. Also, IPCC’s report is a collection of several scientific opinions. It doesn’t convey a single meaning. It reports the state of the scientific opinions, that is considered to be authentic in the scientific community. It is also a political tool. The political organizations are given a “summary” or briefing based out of IPCC reports, to base their policies on. The Himalayan claim was not included in that briefing.

IPCC and UN might be a joke and a failure. But just ridiculing them, isn’t the right way forward.

There is lot of politics involved in the policy making… and it is unfortunate that the scientific community has also been politicized in this case.

About economics, why cannot you understand any of that?

I haven’t studied either of the models you mentioned. Not good at economics.

But, I don’t think support for either of the systems should be based on “beliefs”. There should be reasons for it. Also, if I understand it correct, some economic models differ in their goals.. at which point the choice of goal depends on ones ideology and preferences.

About the report of 1999, what has changed since than?
o apple does not fall on earth in 2009 or 2010? Is CO2 not carbon dioxide in 2010?

I have mostly avoided reading older articles, mainly because several of the claims have been refuted in the years since. Several more studies have been done, either to provide more support to some kind of data or to show inaccuracies in other data. Just trying to stay at the cutting edge of the analysis… There is lot of to and fro in the arguments, there are new variables found, etc., so the analysis is certainly time dependent..

And I don’t think the people refuting the Global Warming, should do it outside of the scientific process, just because they are in the minority. But until and unless there is conclusive analysis, which is peer reviewed, showing that the current claims are false, there is no reason to believe in these arguments. That is how science works.

I do not agree that it is time for governments to step in. I don’t think the approaches being considered are right approaches. Nor do I think they are effective in what they are trying to do. I do not agree with the “alarmists” like Gore. I think there is lot more left for the scientific community to hash out.
.-= Gubbi´s last blog ..Third Party Batteries and Power Adapters on Dell Laptops. =-.