One more thing quacker.  Was it not you who said:

And is it not you that "flew"?  Have you now branded yourself (once more) a racist? Hurts when the truth is revealed - by you no less.

The party of Abraham Lincoln indeed, that's how far you'd have to go back to find an honest one.

You are a childish ass and I will no longer participate in your inane doublespeak talk. Feel free to chatter on aimlessly, it suits your personality well.

grew up?  Or was just born there?  And if you left when a minor, you could not have been too cognizant of the surroundings (but then that was just last year, right?).

And there must be a warrant for your arrest upon your return, right?  and that is why you did not go back?

Oh, I see.  So you were not against freeing the slaves, just civil rights?  Kind of like bobby.  Yea, how far are you in the grand order?  Kleagle yet?

Please run away and take your juvenile insults with you.  I guess we have enough of your lies.  I know, everything I type is a lie.  And how do we know?  Mr. Know It All says so!

Q. What does smoking have to do with global warming or the hole in the ozone layer?

A. Nothing.

Please keep the conversation on subject.

That's a joke. I say, that's a joke, son!

Gentlemen, let's try to keep the language clean, the discussion civil and on-topic. Thanks.

I appologize for polluting your blog.  An excellent thesis and I appreciate being a part of the discussion.

Apology accepted Doc. Mumblefratz was on the attack the moment he walked in the door. While I deleted two of his posts due to the language used, I'll let the rest of it stand.

It will be interesting to see if there is any follow-up to the original research and what the results are. Time will tell!

With Mumble, anyone who questions the assumptions upon which AGW theory is based is either an idiot or an untrustworthy tool of Big Oil.  All AGW proponents are pure, all opponents tainted in some way.  The value of any information is determined exclusively by where it came from, not its content.  AGW is in his mind accepted fact (settled science), therefore any burden of proof is exclusively on those who question its assumptions.

As long as we're on the subject: interesting read.

The sad part is that the arguments he uses to minimize the sources he does not like can also be applied to his sources.

Such as he only wants to use "Climatologist", but Pachauri, head of the IPCC is not one, nor is Mann.  And climatology is not a branch of science, just an interaction of several branches.  But he discounts anyone in those branches as not being an authority. 

Too many of the AGW religious are like him, and nothing short of the destruction of the planet is going to convince they are wrong.  It is like the Daffy Duck cartoon (the one where he is auditioning for a spot on a show and blows himself up).  They can only be proved wrong once - but there will be no one around afterwards to say "see, we told you so".

Yes, very. Thanks!

I read an interesting article recently by Andrew Coyne, and I quote "The error here is not only scientific. It is also political. If your desire is to persuade the unpersuaded among the general public, the very worst way to go about it is to advertise your bottomless contempt for your adversaries."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/07/the-truth-is-out-there-somewhere/

It doesn't matter what side of the debate that you are on, but if your basic argument is, "I'm so smart, you're so dumb, and I'm going to hit you over the head with my opinions until you get it", well that is not likely to be the argument that persuades me.