Per 710 KNUS, MoveOn.org wants the Denver Post to stop printing letters that deny the "Science" of global warming. Think the local paper should refuse to print letters from people who refuse to buy into Al Gore's vision?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I don't care if Al Gore flys in private jets, or has a $10,000 electric bill...Polluting our atmosphere is bad- its a thin strip of air surrounding the planet we live on.
How stupid are you to argue for more pollution especially since youre not getting filthy rich by producing it, like your "information providers" are. They get filthy rich, we get asthma, and once again you have no argument at all..Bashing Al Gore is no argument Fred- You continually make yourself look stupid- You can't see that? Are you trolling?
I believe in global warming. I was just asking if you think it is a good idea that the Denver Post should only print letters from global warming adherents.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Super Malta wrote: I don't care if Al Gore flys in private jets, or has a $10,000 electric bill...Polluting our atmosphere is bad- its a thin strip of air surrounding the planet we live on.
How stupid are you to argue for more pollution especially since youre not getting filthy rich by producing it, like your "information providers" are. They get filthy rich, we get asthma, and once again you have no argument at all..Bashing Al Gore is no argument Fred- You continually make yourself look stupid- You can't see that? Are you trolling?
2014 - Global sea ice area is 0.669 million square kilometers above the 1979- through current date average
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/n_stddev_timeseries1.png?w=640&h=512
FredHayek wrote: I believe in global warming. I was just asking if you think it is a good idea that the Denver Post should only print letters from global warming adherents.
Sure, who does not believe in censorship.
It is happening. Some animals are more equal than others.
..."And with that, as far as "The Los Angeles Times" is concerned, the debate is over. The Times is among mainstream media sources that quietly stopped giving a voice to climate-change deniers. There was no initial policy statement or announcement -- the letters editor simply stopped choosing to print letters from climate change deniers. This weekend, he mentioned the decision as an aside in an editor's note.
"Letters that have an untrue basis (for example, ones that say there's no sign humans have caused climate change) do not get printed," Paul Thornton wrote."...
..."Last month, another mainstream source of science news, the magazine "Popular Science," took an even more direct approach to removing the deniers from the climate change discussion. On Sept. 24, PopSci announced that it is shutting off comments on its website."...
Well Rev Relevent did you intentionally not read the
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
web site which is where you cherry picked your climate denier graph?
Arctic sea ice continued to expand during November, gaining 2.24 million square kilometers (865,000 square miles) of ice since the beginning of the month. Sea ice extent for November averaged 10.24 million square kilometers (3.95 million square miles). This is 750,000 square kilometers (290,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent and is the 6th lowest November extent in the 35-year satellite data record. As was the case for October 2013, sea ice extent for November 2013 remained within two standard deviations of the long-term 1981 to 2010 average.
I mean- you did read the article that included your graph didn't you?
The below average ice extent in the Arctic was largely due to a lack of ice in the Barents Sea, which has shown a pattern of low autumn and winter ice extent over the recent years. This November, the overall extent in the Barents Sea was the second lowest in the satellite record, with the lowest occurring in 2012.
Any wonder that the News quit printing Flat Earth letters?
Should they keep printing Birther letters?
whitegp wrote: Well Rev Relevent did you intentionally not read the
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
web site which is where you cherry picked your climate denier graph?
Arctic sea ice continued to expand during November, gaining 2.24 million square kilometers (865,000 square miles) of ice since the beginning of the month. Sea ice extent for November averaged 10.24 million square kilometers (3.95 million square miles). This is 750,000 square kilometers (290,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent and is the 6th lowest November extent in the 35-year satellite data record. As was the case for October 2013, sea ice extent for November 2013 remained within two standard deviations of the long-term 1981 to 2010 average.
I mean- you did read the article that included your graph didn't you?
The below average ice extent in the Arctic was largely due to a lack of ice in the Barents Sea, which has shown a pattern of low autumn and winter ice extent over the recent years. This November, the overall extent in the Barents Sea was the second lowest in the satellite record, with the lowest occurring in 2012.
Any wonder that the News quit printing Flat Earth letters?
Should they keep printing Birther letters?
Climate scientist always have a NEW theory. They are like little children making up new stories every day when their parent keep asking them why they stole the candy.
Up next... global warming causing frigid weather in US. Of course in the 1970 we experienced similar bouts of cold and that's when the climate scientist were telling us we were in store for a new ice age.
Yeah!!! The earth is 4000 years old and we've only been pumping toxic gasses into our atmosphere for the last 100.. The end of times in coming soon anyway so lets not worry about- We'll all laugh about all this "science nonsense" when were in heaven..
So you failed to read your own post huh Rev?
Climate Scientists are children?
You -- YES YOU
are the one who self created a self fulfilling fantasy without even READING your own post.
D- on your homework Rev
You want to throw out names when you are called on the most basic of lapses in your own argument -- go for it.
I am sure everyone will reread your climate post now that you corrected it in your last post.
When you grow up Rev - post some real information - and read it first.
Now all you right wingers -- get back in your circle.
