By taking an 'anti-science' viewpoint and treating 'climate change' as a dirty word, are American conservatives helping to ensure that China surpasses us in the next great global market?

Wouldn't it be correct for you to express that as, "I knew it too, too", sarah-dick?

Yes, I knew it too!

You knew it,'sarah'!

I knew it! Good for you myth.

Actually I only drink water in bottled form. The water in Parkersburg in addition to being laced with C8 is rather nasty tasting. And who do we have to thank for that? Why the rights beloved corporations. You know those poor folk who are just hounded to death by regulations. The same regulations that if not in place would mean we would have even more chemicals in the water supply destroying brain cells.

Oh yeah. Myth too! Got to celebrate it!

Must be something in the water these Ohio river peckerwoods drink... But it only seems to leave some people brain damaged. Or maybe ONeill and Harry just drink bottled water...

But I haven't 'slithered away' now have I you pitiful little stupid sexist worm, now have I? And maybe the tactics haven't changed either, because - in fact - your thinking is as crackpotted about me as it is about JFK, the destruction of the WTC, or the significance of Jeff Immelt.

You are one really dullwitted creature, Kunect! When hunting with Todd, even the slowest last-of-the-pack caribou is smarter than you! You couldn't even pass a journalism class if you attended 5 colleges in six years to do so!

I wonder what happened to harryanderson's thread of; "Kunectdots wrong; Cheney vindicated"?

I wanted to let "harry" know about the update in with DickCheney's name becoming "SarahPalin" but the thread seems to have been removed from the "National Politics" pick list.

I guess some structural 'editing' DOES occur here.

BTW - I posted HERE, 3 days ago, that; "My prediction is the DNC will have him (dick) slither away from that tactic, incrimentally (with a possible name change AGAIN), as November approaches."

NOVEMBER HAS APPROACHED!

Shoot, I must have lived such a doggoned sheltered life as a normal, independent American up there in the Last Frontier, schooled with only public education and a lowly state university degree, because obviously I haven't learned enough to dismiss common sense.

And common sense tells me that Fred is completely right in his last post. You don't even have to study past the first few pages of a ninth grade science book in Wasilla to know that science is about a series of hypotheses and evidence that either 'proves' or 'disproves' some tested hypotheses and thereby gives more or less evidence to "a theory".

Sure seems to me that all the testing the scientists have been doing all points in the same direction: human activity is warming the planet. And somebody will do something about it. So you are opposed to investment in green energy only if you are more stupid than a musk ox or a caribou.

Geez... Some folks here really are that dumb too!

A strong La Niña lowered the world's average temperature last year to its second-coolest reading of the 2000s, federal scientists announced Thursday.

The release of the two primary climate data sets — from the National Climatic Data Center and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) — both show the Earth as much warmer than average, but not as warm as recent years have been.

... And, to add to what Dick just said, a thesis tested over and over again by countless reputable scientists becomes as close to a "fact" as science permits - as opposed to what you might hear on a show like FOX and Friends where the Carlson lady or the Douchey guy pull reactionary fibs out of their nether orifices for the entertainment of "low-information" voters like some folks who post here ...

Well, Tired, you wanted a reason for the end of the Ice Age. I merely supplied a possible cause (albeit a satirical one) more in line with your usual line of reasoning ... The rest of what I said about climate change was intended to be more serious ...

So there, TiresomeSh*t: You just received a serious answer to your questions. Now I fully expect you to ridicule it in various childish ways.

That is typical of the idiot. I assume you will fulfill your obligations as a demonstrated idiot and 'play through', so to speak.

Tp be serious with you TiresomeSh*t, I suggest you read this from the NYTimes 'Dot Earth' blog:

ht tp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.co m/2012/02/02/two-nobelists-offer-views-of-human-driven-global-warming/

There is a key point here folks who don't really understand science ignore.

The conclusion of the scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming (and the problems that almost certainly result from it), are NOT relying on ANY SINGLE piece of evidence, or a handfull of such items of evidence, or even a few hundreds of items of evidence. Instead, the 'puzzle' of observed warming is much more like a jigsaw puzzle which might contain many thousands of pieces, but for which at least a FEW THOUSAND have already been 'filled in'. The NETWORK of facts dictate the conclusions. And if you have ONE OR TWO pieces in the wrong place, it doesn't really change that conclusion.

If you weren't an idiot, Tiresome, you might think about this.

Tired - The icebergs and glaciers melted because of mammoth flatulence!

Need I comment ****

(continued)

But if you take these same accurate models, and then "subtract out" (or remove, so to speak) the parameters of CO2 change that surely results from human activity, these models become MUCH LESS ACCURATE and CANNOT account for the OBSERVED WARMING. Moreover, various ideas have been tried to adjust these models to exclude the 'greenhouse' contributions, and they simply do not work.

This of course, strongly suggest that global climate change is indeed occurring due to greenhouse gas injections. Moreover, there is a HUGE amont of corresponding evidence in terms of species migrations, plant adaptations, ice samples, and even small-scale tidal effects. Increasingly thousands of pieces of data all converge on the singular conclusion of anthropogenic causation. And that conclusion has ONLY grown stronger for the last 30 years or so...

Fools like you, Tiresome, don't understand this. That is why you are an idiot.

... There was what some call the "Little Ice Age" that lasted from around 1300 (when the Norse Greenland colony froze out) to around 1850 or 1860 (the Battle of Rich Mountain in August, 1861 was hampered by a freak snowstorm in the mountains of eastern W.Va.) ... Cheney is correct though - the various ice-ages had/have NOTHING to do with current climate change ... You watched that stupid Roland Emerrich "Day After Tomorrow" movie, didn'y you?

Anthropogenic global warming is 'forced' warming caused by injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as a function of human activities. The history of any effect of such human 'forcing' of course, is VERY SHORT (dating from the beginning of the steam age in the late 1700s). Moreover the injection of large quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is very recent indeed, having accelerated and had its consequences in the last 40 to 50 years or so. By comparison this is NOTHING in comparison with the lengths of time one is discussing in the context of ice ages and other such long-term changes in the earth.

One of the key arguments for human forcing is simply the OBSERVED changes in earth temperatures over time (as well as ice-sample evidence, etc.). The fact is, GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURES over relatively LONG periods of time are very predictable in terms of large-scale mathematical climate models.

Hey! I'm also "Tired of IT" ("IThink"), not to mention the rightwing rantings of the Absurdist One!