New Washington Poll: A Look at Our Very Own Tea Party

Comments

1
These douches become credible when they forfeit their Medicare, disability, and Social Security payments.
2
If only these guys would stick to praying. Keep praying! Pray for everyone to die! Pray for no "tax's." Pray for a million bajillion dollars. Pray on the streets. That should be enough for you geniuses.
3
Tea Baggers are racist bigots and disgracefully selfish. And that includes gargantuan foolishness about what a cohesive and functioning society needs and includes. We had better turn out and vote so these morons don't succeed.
4
the margin of error (assuming it's a random sample - which it ain't) is plus or minus 2.4(3)% not 2.3% sweet zombie jebuz! can't these polling agencies even work a calculator no mo'?

("eh, what's 0.1%? the whole thing is pretty much made up anyway")
5
Did the pollsters call people on their cell phones, or was it land-line only?

If it was the latter, which I suspect it was, we know now that those polls skew greatly toward an older, more conservative population.. which is all I could think of this morning when I saw that a new poll suggests that a majority of Americans want an anti-immigration bill like Arizona's, for their own state. And I thought: "Aha! Land Lines Strike Again!!"
6
Why aren't 100% of the "true believers" pissed off about health-care and Governor Gregoire?
7
"Yakima residents observe a moment of silence for written English."
8
@5 - seriously, how many people actually respond to any poll on their cell phone?

If wishes were horses, airtime would be free.
9
So they're opposed to any and all taxes and support fiscal insolvency. I guess there's a reason they're called the Tea Party and not the Math Party.
10
Sorry Vince, but you RACE-BAITERS cant outsmart sensible people, The Tea party is a respectable party as the world now sees it. But in your perception, those americans dont have a valid position on politics. It's you, a fervent RACE-BAITER who probably hates himself for ideals that have long been settled by the american people. Perhaps, you need to put down your bong, move out of your mommies basement, and consider a real life.
11
@10 - 20% of the population might be a respectable party in, say, Italy. But, in our electoral system, 20% of the population is little more than a spoiler (see also Ross Perot & Ralph Nader).
12
The tea party isnt opposed to ANY taxes, they're opposed to the unbridaled greed of the progressive party who, like Patty Murray, are DRUNK with power and spending like a wino who just found $100 bill in the sidewalk. Patty, clearly doesnt represent the wishes of the state. She represents the waste in our federal Government. She disrespects the opposition which only validates her PARTY FAITHFUL AGENDA. The Deomcratic party is dead, it has become the progressive socialist party, and Patty is a member. She is party to the bunbridaled greed of the climate change criminals who want to play God, with our money, and patience. Our patience has run out!!!! TAKE BACK AMERICA!!!
13
@12: http://tehdago.files.wordpress.com/2009/…
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you schmucks want to ax the Department of Education? Also, "bunbridaled": are those little pastries served at weddings?
14
@ 8 - Probably not very many.

But you miss my point, which is: it's time to recognize that these polls are NOT representative of American views, if they ever were. Polls these days are only representative of the way old people think (not to put too fine a point on it).
15
@12 - Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. It's delicious! See ya in November!
16
I don't think we should AX the department of education, I think we should prosecute the losers who're teaching climate change and progressive politics to our children.
17
@16: Yeah, we should definitely sack teachers who educate their students about well-supported scientific theories like anthropogenic climate change and evolution through natural selection, or who teach them about progressive ideals and groups, such as the Civil Rights Movement.
Remember the Scopes Monkey Trial? It wasn't Scopes who ended up looking like a monkey. You can take your classroom censorship and shove it up your ass. If you really cared about limited government, you wouldn't want to persecute teachers who teach subjects that don't jive with your own personal beliefs.
And when I have kids, I WILL NOT have their education suffer because you want your children to sit on an ivory tower and ignore anything you don't like.
18
LOL, Im not certain, but wasn't it a researcher, Mary Leakey, who discovered in Africa, two progressives who were perched over a termite mound, poking a stick down the hole while searching for thier dinner? You so-called TEACHERs, who're over paid, over unionized, and common union thugs teach your own brand of education. Our children shoudn't be drug into the politicized, FALSE view of progressive research. I have every doubt in progressive climate data, since the TEACHERS who MANUFACTURE FALSE data use it to make money for the progressive socialists, foreign Goverments, and Al Bore. While it is proven that teachers cook the books until your wallets are satisfied, I for one, am satisfied for the moment, with the FRAUD being exposed to the American public. Facts of which were proven, you termite guardians of the mound, should find another profession. The emotional prostitution of our children by teachers and spronsored by unions for political gain is criminal.
19
@18: Whoa, buddy, where do I even begin?
1: Mary Leakey didn't study chimpanzees; she was an archaeologist/anthropologist, meaning she worked with fossils. Don't worry, though; you're not descended from apes so much as overtaken by them.
2: You seem to really hate "progressive research", but neither of us seems to have a clue what that means. Is progressive research any study that doesn't just say "we'll take the Bible's word for it and drop the issue"? Glad to hear you hate science.
3: You seem to think that teachers MANUFACTURE FALSE data. Can you give me an example of some of these FALSE MANUFACTUREd data? Or are you just talking through your ass?
4: How would making up data pertaining to global climate change make money for socialists? Or for "Goverments", whatever those are. Where is the money to be made in it?
5: For that matter, how does research into anthropogenic climate change (or other "progressive research", whatever that may be) end up costing you money? What you're saying makes no sense.
6: At this point, I honestly have no fucking clue what you're trying to say, as your narrative consists, from this point onwards, of many jumbled, poorly spelled, vaguely accusatory clauses. My guess is either that (a) the acid kicked in around there or that (b) you have trouble typing and wanking at the same time.
20
@17: All I want is correct history taught in schools, not the 'wishy-washy,feel-good' versions taught today. And, yes, we need to axe the Dept. of Education. 30 years of insanely expensive policies that have led to a decline in student rankings when the US is compared to other countries. Last year we graduated 700,000 high schools seniors that could not even read their own diplomas!!!
21
Would 700,000 be the total number of high school seniors that graduated last year? And not one of them could read their diplomas? Remarkable. What test results support your statement that the evil Department of Education has set nearly 3/4 of a million illiterate young adults free to wreak havoc on society?

And would River be one of them? Holy cats, that is one individual whose hatred of the educational system appears to be justified--did no one even attempt to teach you about the usage of punctuation?

One statement needs to be made, however. Teachers do not manufacture, generate, or otherwise impact any data about climate. That would be scientists, climatologists, others whose titles end in ist. Teachers use the materials provided to them (usually outdated) to impart information (usually watered down to what content the moral minority will approve) to students (usually disinterested and undisciplined, thanks to their parents)in the brief time allotted to them (usually less than an hour a day). And before you make proclamations about how overpaid teachers are, liberally peppered with extraneous commas, have a look at salary tables.
22
Dear VenomGums:

Apparently, you, being loftier then the rest of the world, must surely need some clarification, since you’re so obviously confused about my position and a large part of the world’s opinion. In an effort to convey a clearer, more discernible message, please see below my corresponding, numbered response:
1. Mary Leakey spent much of her time measuring the fossil skulls of vertebrates thought to be the missing link. I’m sure she would have loved to measure your skull, too. (Please don’t feel left out. There is still time to hone up on your termite skills)
2. I hate nobody, not even mealy-mouthed progressives like you who generalize in an effort to dismiss objective opinion. I wouldn’t waste my time, emotional energy, or talent on Atheists like yourself who obviously fear Jesus Christ, God, and climate change, all of which is nothing more then your obvious fear of things you CAN’T control. And by the way, VenomGums, who are you to question the bible, Jesus Christ, or God? Do you possess some ordained enlightenment that the rest of us don’t know about? Oh gee, I forgot, you must be a teacher, one of those overpaid, undereducated, political thugs of a union, (NEA) who traumatizes our children with emotional-pedophilia concerning climate control so that your personal political beliefs may be substituted and exacted upon the impressionable, all for a bigger pension. Are we to believe you and only you? Without question? And please, the next time you hoist oxymoronic words like “anthropogenic” up your flagpole, be sure they are supported by objective data and not subjective BS (i.e. Millions of educated human beings don’t believe manmade climate change exits, but you must have some privileged information only bestowed upon the lofty. (You must be a vain jerk)
3. I don’t hate science, in fact, I love it when it proves that climate control fanatics cook the books defrauding the general public, impressionable children, and unaware citizens for political and financial gain. i.e. Al Gore, Michael E. Mann, M.E., President Barack Hussein Obama, and Senator Patty Murray, to name a few. And just in case your world has retarded your awareness, Venom Trap, here’s a website that might open the door to a more enlightening, objective truth and personal stability. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfVwEBkuq…
4. Michael E. Mann, a noted climatologist and TEACHER, who created the “Hockey Stick” chart used by climatologists all over the world, supported global warming. But the facts be known, our teacher, cooked the data on the chart failing to inform the world that for the last 11 years the earth has been COOLING. (hmm, imagine that) He, and apparently, Al Bore conspired to deceive the world for monetary and political gain. How cheap of Al and Michael. (say it ain’t so, another teacher caught in another scandal) and if you don’t know who Crime, Inc. is, and the financial climate scheme for which they are contriving, then perhaps a more fair and honest newsworthy report would satisfy your insatiable ignorance. (gee, I found a teacher for you :)) )
5. See Crime, Inc. your redundancy and ignorance of the world around you is pathetic, and educating a moron reprobate is not my profession. Clearly the economy of climate change arouses your primal piss flaps and energizes your need to be a politically correct spell checker, when it should arouse your objective self. I’ve never seen a spelling exam on any IQ test. Apparently, you’ve never seen an IQ test. How’s my imperfect sense, now? 
6. And in summation, I don’t want to burst your clueless bubble, I will agree with you, YOU ARE FUCKING CLUELESS!!!! if I have to explain the world around you, one more time, then (a) the stupid should be neutered and (b) progressive liberal, know-it-alls, when they get their asses kicked and their internet blog image gets damaged, they resort to sexual innuendo which invalidates their senseless opinion and validates their sexual inadequacy.

23
Scuze me catballou, but Michael E Mann is a teacher, professor, and climatologist who's reknowned work was accepted all over the world by the leading so-called scientists who blindly barked up the the same climate tree. Any scientist, worth his salt, would know better then to accept unsubstantiated data. Michael may some day be prosecuted for FRAUD. And teachers do wrongly influence our children with misinformation, minimal literalism, and threats. They also defraud the meaning of our constitutional laws to suit thier political agenda. Even our reprinted Constitutions in text books is reprinted to meet the political correctness of fanatic social engineers, TEACHERS!!!

While I don't hate teachers, many are oustanding specialists, dedicated to kids, and thier lives. I hold with deep respect those educators who're attempting to right the manufactured wrongs of our textbooks and climate gestapol policies. Poliitics is no place for kids, and like the church and state separation, so should politics be separated from the misleading hands of political activist teachers who harm the innocence of CHOICE, bestowed upon the children, by God..

personally, I think it sucks, education must change and I'm angry enough to support prosecution..
24
@22, 23:
You're not doing any better this time around. For starters, it's "hone" or "bone up". Not "hone up".
Moving on: I'm not actually an Atheist, you twit. I'm a full-blooded and faithful MOT. But then again, you probably think that my people control the media, so that's no step up in your eyes. And if you do actually love science, as you claim to, you'll feel free to question the Bible when there is evidence against it. It is not a hard-and-fast history; it is a book of moralistic parables. As the great Rabbi Hillel once said: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary."
Evidently, you Christians seem to have added rather a lot of garbage to it.
I have no idea exactly what you mean by "emotional-pedophilia" as it regards climate change. What, are teachers sticking their wrinkled old facts down children's smooth, hairless egos?
Your admonition to avoid using big words unless I can back them up rings a little hollow, by the way. "Oxymoronic" means "self-contradictory". "Jumbo shrimp" or "military intelligence" are oxymorons. "Anthropogenic" just means "caused by humans". Seriously, stop mongling the dictionary and try using actual words that you understand.

At this point I should perhaps move on to my real arguments. Firstly, it is immensely hypocritical for you to declare "oh, you claim to know that the world is getting warmer; you must have SOME PRIVILEGED INFORMATION that we lowly mortals must have missed" while simultaneously insisting that reliable, oft-duplicated data have somehow been fabricated, without citing a single source or giving any evidence.
Secondly, and more importantly, YOU HAVEN'T CITED A SINGLE SOURCE BACKING YOUR ASSERTIONS UP.
When Galileo put forth his ideas that not everything orbited the Earth, he didn't just say so; he laid out his observations of Io, Europa, and Callisto, where their rapid changes in position demonstrated that they were orbiting Jupiter.
You, however, continue to blindly claim that we've got it all wrong, and that "SCIENCE PROVES" that this-and-that were fabricated, without giving a single piece of data. That's not what scientists do; hell, it's not even what political activists do.
It's what bathshit conspiracy theorists and poop-in-the-shower bible-thumpers do.
I'd still like to see a single set of data supporting any of your assertions that:
-Research has been falsified.
-The Earth has followed a cooling trend since 1999.
-Teachers knowingly and willingly disseminate false information for their own profit.
-The Constitution as printed in textbooks is substantially altered from the original.
And don't worry about the stupid not being neutered; I doubt you'll find a reproductive partner anyway. Just keep fapping to SLOG or whatever.
By the way, nobody credible in the scientific community
"accepts" unsubstantiated data. What do they do? They draw conclusions from the data, gather evidence that will either support or reject the original data, and draw new conclusions. There's actually a shit ton of data out there indicating that we are causing the Earth to warm dangerously.

Also, just to nitpick a bit and degrade you:
If a creature feeds off of the termites present in a mound, it's hardly a "termite [guardian] of the mound". More like a "predator of the termite mound".
I never made any claim concerning IQ tests, spelling tests, or "imperfect sense". You must be hallucinating if you think I did. Are you seeing any pink elephants?
"Summation" is a mathematical term used to describe the cumulative addition of a series of numbers. The word you were looking for, describing the condensation of an argument into a shorter overarching statement, is "summary".
"Gestapol" is not a word; you've gone and conflated "Gestapo" and "Interpol".
Nobody's going to take you seriously if you invoke the separation of Church and State, and then yammer on about how "political activist[s]" are harming children's God-given "CHOICE".

Also, you made some implication pertaining to what you think is my "sexual inadequacy". Four months ago, give or take, I made a woman come seven times in a row from plain old missionary-style. Duplicate that feat and then we can talk about "sexual inadequacy".
25
LOL oh VENOMJAWS, your pissflaps are once again spewing yards of pyshcobabble supported by NOTHING other then mongoloid ranting. And by the way, your so-called global warming crap is supported by theory, AKA a scheme.. (do I have to look that word up for you in the dictionary?) now go away psychodrone, you're from a world were self awareness is obviously not in your skill set . lol.. and "this woman that you made come seven times in a row" LOL was she a whiteface or a holestein? (judging by dumbasses response, he's losing sleep LOL)
26
@25: Glad to see you can't cite a single source.
Apart from your horrendous misspelling of "psychobabble" and your use of "LOL" three times in such a short argument, you should know that "mongoloid" means "of ethnically Chinese extraction". I am not mongoloid, and I'm not even going to guess at what you think it means.
You should also know what "theory" means, by the way, if you wish to correct me on its meaning. A theory is a proposed model explaining some observed phenomenon along with a collection of evidence that is consistent with the model. (The model alone, without any evidence to support or contradict it, is called a hypothesis.) Anthropogenic climate change is not supported by theory; it is described and defined by theory. It is supported by EVIDENCE; cold hard empirical scientific observation.
In other words, perhaps you should go ahead and look that word up in a dictionary.
Also, it is illogical to claim that I have no self-awareness. If that was true, I would by definition have no concept of self, no psychological identity, and would not, therefore, respond to or even make sense of your ad hominem attacks.
Finally, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with cow sex, or perhaps bestiality in general. You might want to go see a therapist.

I'm still waiting for you to cite a single shred of evidence that global warming is somehow false or fabricated. Here, I'll write it in big bold letters so you won't miss it.
CITE YOUR SOURCES AGAINST ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE, N00B!!!
27
And 1 more point, VENOMCRAP, you would be a good candidate for the punctuation police. MORON.. Anthropogenic is an OXYMORONIC term :)) there is NO proof, but only Theory that man made Global warming. And the carbon theory is just a scheme and proven so.
28
scuze me dumbass, but EVIDENCE, can be FALSE or TRUE and relative to fact, in your case, flapping your gums validates NO truth.. .Global Warming is a FRAUD, manufactured by eco looneys who're more interested in punctuation and vocabulary then truth.
29
@27: "Anthropogenic" does not contradict itself; you are seriously deficient in the Understanding-of-Words Department. "Anthropogenic" means "man-made". An oxymoronic term like "jumbo shrimp" or "dry wine" clearly goes against its own meaning; shrimp is often used as a pejorative against people who are clearly not jumbo, and wine is obviously a liquid and therefore not dry. Please stop using words that you don't know the meaning of.
There's no proof for gravity, either, just so you know. And yet we accept it. Why? Because the vast majority of evidence is consistent with Newton's Theory of Gravitation. (And the few that don't, such as some anomalies in Mercury's orbit, are explained easily when you consider the effects of relativity.)
A well-supported theory is the closest thing we have to proof in a world of empirical observation.
And again you go with your unsupported "Oh, it's just a scheme" statements. Please, if it's so well proven that "carbon theory" (whatever that is; the Internet fails me on identifying that one) is just a bunch of shadows on a wall, one would think that you'd be able to back up your claim with actual evidence.

Just a comment: so far you've called me "VenomGums", "Venom Trap", "VENOMJAWS", and "VENOMCRAP". I'd just like you to know that of those four, I prefer "VENOMJAWS"; it makes me sound fearsome.
30
My point exactly, while you lame brained dumbasses blame Global warming on Man, Anthropogenic is exactly that, it means "mans contribution to global warming", which is an EXPOSED FRAUD, otherwise, OXYMORON... but then, I can imagine knotheads like yourself blaming GEICO cavemen sitting around a campfire, knawing on a brontosaurus burger for violating ANTHROPOGENIC laws. LOL.. god you're mindless!!! and by the way, You really have to wonder how Tipper Gore could have stayed with husband Al Gore the climate fraud, for so long. 40 years to be precise. With the mental intellect of a prairie toad and the monotone croaking that only other toads could possibly find charming, I think he has some associate toads on this site.(dont get defensive, VenomTard, I'll misspell plenty of words for you to rant about.)

And one last thing, a little more EVIDENCE should make you happy ..China has announced its plans to go online with coal fired energy plants. One every two weeks for TEN years. Now, mister know-it-all, do the math on that one. I calculate that only volcanos can equal that amount of GHGs, but if you add that volume of volcanic carbon together with chinese meatball carbon.... you're screwed... Global Warming , MY ASS!!!!
31
@30: You are dumber than a bag of hammers, River. "Anthropogenic" just means "caused by humans"; it has nothing to do with climate change. Regardless of your view on anthropogenic climate change, the word "anthropogenic" does not contradict itself.
I should perhaps mention that there is no "TRUE" or "FALSE" evidence. Evidence exists; it doesn't make any statements. The only way evidence can be used to make an argument is by testing whether or not the evidence is consistent with a proposed model.
Your attack on Al Gore's marriage suggests to me that you obviously get laid a lot. Actually, no; you sound like you're a bit sexually repressed.

While I appreciate the effort, making a statement is not actually citing evidence; that requires, at the least, posting a link. Assuming China does intend to build ~260 new coal-fired plants:
What the hell are you trying to say? It's obvious that you didn't actually do any calculations or math of any sort, and your assertion that "only volcanos can equal that amount of GHGs" makes no sense whatsoever. In summary (not summation):
How does China building new power plants disprove anthropogenic climate change?

I'd still like for you to give me a link to credible evidence that the Earth has been warming these past 11 years, that scientists have falsified data, and that scientists, teachers, and foreign governments have benefited monetarily from this falsification. Just one link? Pretty please with a bible on top?
32
Here ya got VenomTard, read it and weap, of course, you'll still be in denial over the fraudulent climate hoax cause I believe it was YOU, who would indroctinate kids with flat out lies with the AL BORE political climate scheme.

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

I believe this is the just one little tidbit that serves to bury the climate hoax for millions of elderly people who are just trying to keep thier toes and dentures warm, until they die. But your jew hating muslim leader, who knows more then the rest of us peons, would prefer to tax them into the ICE AGE. Global warming is a lie. And um, its not me who needs proof of an Anthropongenic Oxymoronic term. it is you :))
33
@32: Thanks, but no thanks. Okay, only ~45% of all emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere. Does this prove anything? Does this even suggest anything about climate change? HELL NO.
Most of the carbon dioxide that we pump into the atmosphere gets absorbed fairly quickly by the oceans and by plant life. If a man drinks a handle of vodka, most of it will be metabolized by his body fairly quickly. And yet it is very easy to drink yourself to death.
Your reference really only serves to reinforce the point that climatologists make: we are drastically altering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If almost half of what we put in stays in, that accounts for a pretty big cumulative total.

I am still waiting for you to provide a source backing up your claim that the Earth has followed a warming trend over the past 11 years. GIVE ME A SOURCE ON THAT.

Fact check: Obama's a Christian, not a Muslim, and has not demonstrated any ill will towards my people.
And please, stop trying to pretend that "anthropogenic" is an oxymoron. It's not, and you're just making yourself look dumber and dumber by insisting that it is.
34
let me do this for ya, VenomTard, type in " Climate Fraud" into your browser and read until your heart's content, of course, you'll deny it all, because you choose to be near religious fantatic in your mindset, substantiating my view that eco-whackos should not breed. Global Warming is merely political, in that respect, it's Anthropogenic (oxymoronic). Global Warming is a myth, as proven all over the net, but in your case, wallowing in theory suits your unbalanced mind. But Im willing to help, I can adjust the tinfoil and coathangers on your head. The radio waves will go away, the voices telling you to become a spelling coach on blogs will change thier tune, and you will be able to sleep nights knowing that there are others in this world, who are not afflicted with your fear of the unknown, climate change, and your missing personal image of sexuality. Go ahead, type in Climate Fraud and right away your inner demons will immediately go away. You'll find a lifetime of facts there, instead of believing your politcal Sham Wow counter rags.
35
@34: It's kind of funny that you're referencing "tinfoil and coathangers on [my] head", considering you're the one alleging a massive conspiracy.
If you want me to believe you, you'll have to give me at least one piece of evidence supporting your statements. If you want me to supply evidence that we are causing dangerous changes in the Earth's climate, I will. But I'd like you to perform the corresponding action. You seem familiar with this alleged climate change fraud; you have listed exact numbers, and I am curious to know where you got them. Just post a link to where you got your information, and I'll check it out.
And yes, I am like a religious fanatic in my mindset. I will not--I repeat, I WILL NOT--believe that something is scientifically accurate unless there is some amount of evidence backing it up. Show me the evidence.
Except you know what? There IS NO EVIDENCE. You climate-change deniers have yet to come up with anything beyond wild accusations and allegations that "oh, it's just a natural cycle". The fact remains, the Earth's global temperature has risen dramatically since the mid-1800s, and to insist that that coincidence with the Industrial Revolution is pure chance is fatally ill-advised.
If you want me to listen to you, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE. SHOW. ME. THE. EVIDENCE.
36
Here ya go VenomBag, dont say I didnt tell ya so, and please, dont have a SHIT HEMMORAGE when ya read this. And good news, I found an Anthropogenic job for ya... RotoRooter wants to hire a progressive liberal to suck farts outa some car seats. I gave em your number.

According to Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, there has been no warming trend since 1995.By now, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) should require no introduction, so let’s get right to it. In a BBC Q&A and corresponding interview released Friday, the discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was that 20th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented. As the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering.

Imagine a man who has spent the better part of the past 25 years toiling to convince the world of CO2-forced 20th-century warming now admitting that the difference in warming rates for the periods 1860-1880, 1910-40 and 1975-2009 is statistically insignificant. Jones even acceded that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995; that in fact, global temperatures have been trending to the downside since January of 2002, although he denied the statistical significance of the -0.12C per decade decline.

Next victim, please!!!!!!!
37
once gain, I hope the sound of that bubble didnt impair your hearing, Phill Jones just happens to be one of those 1000s of scientists who were defrauded by your so-called climate gurus. Proof of my claim litters the internet, one must only look, and its NOT my job to find truth for you.

Not only does Dr. Jones concede the event of being defrauded, but he also concedes there has been NO DANGEROUS decline since before the industrial revolution. LET ME ADJUST YOUR ANTENNA A LITTLE MORE . Thousands of scientists have been defrauded by governments, climatologist, and commercial FRAUDs who choose to soak the people of the world with fear and thier scheme to hold hostage the uniformed. But more convincingly, that climate freaks are defrauding and being defrauded, is the fact that AL stinky-thinking Gore just bought a $9M home only 45 feet from Santa Barbar beachfront. I suppose he wants to sit on the beack and watch polar bears float by on icecubes while the ocean rises above his head.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/c…
38
@36, 37: Oh, you poor ignorant son-of-a-so-and-so...
Nobody intelligent is claiming that there's no need for further research into climate change. You and your source make the fatal mistake of confusing "not set in stone" with "false and fraudulent". The truth is that the Earth is warming; instrumental data confirms that.
I took the liberty of reading the unedited transcript of the interview (OOPS! I'm bringing FACTS into this!) and it doesn't really say anything that you say it does.

The magnitude of today's global warming is not unprecedented; what is unprecedented is such an increase without any apparent natural cause. The Medieval Warm Period, for example, was caused by a combination of volcanism and fluctuations in solar activity; this is well-understood. Recent warming has no such apparent natural cause.
Your assertion that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 is fundamentally flawed. He mentions that it is nearly significant at the .95 level. In statistics, that's what we call "strong evidence" to reject the null hypothesis (which is that there was no warming over the time period). Since you obviously never took a class in English or literature, I'll assume you're a stranger to stats.
You're also a flat-out LIAR for claiming that Dr. Jones admitted any sort of fraud or wrongdoing. I should therefore mention that "discredited" is the wrong word to use; there is no evidence (beyond a few meaningless quotes taken out of context) that he did anything wrong. Ditto with regards to Dr. Mann's record.
And just because warming continued at roughly the same rate over the time period studied does not mean that we aren't affecting the global climate; if you read the actual interview, you'll see that without human influence, we'd have seen substantial cooling due to increased volcanism. Yes, there's no statistically significant (at the .95 confidence level) change in warming rate, but if you assume we haven't affected the climate, there should be.
By the way, the much-touted phrase "hide the decline" refers to replacing inaccurate data over a recent period with more reliable data from the same interval. My informed opinion is that you twerps continue to know nothing about science.
But I'd still like to see you prove me wrong. Don't give me links to a bunch of yahoos saying what you're saying; give me EVIDENCE. Give me a set of data demonstrating that the Earth has not been affected by our reckless output of carbon dioxide. Show me the evidence, fool.

And in regards to Al Gore's house: have you considered that maybe he just wants to enjoy the coastline before rising sea levels disfigure it? (We have got a good few years before that happens, even by the worst-case-scenario predictions.)
39
Here’s a rogue’s gallery of five major perpetrators of what’s turning out to be the biggest scientific hoax in modern history: Even the IPCC validates the claim that climate change proponents have false data, and manufactured for politcal, finanical, and power gains.

Geoff Jenkins, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s first scientific group and self-described “frontman explaining climate change.” Jenkins admitted in 1996 to a “cunning plan” to feed fake temperature information to Nick Nuttall, head of media for the United Nations Environment program. At the time, Jenkins predicted temperatures in London would hit 113 degrees Fahrenheit and the Thames River would rise three feet even though 1996 was, in fact, cooler than 1995.

Phil Jones, director of the CRU, controlled two key databases that are the primary sources underlying claims by the United Nations and others of a global scientific “consensus” that catastrophic consequences will result from man-made global warming unless trillions of dollars are spent now to prevent it. Jones e-mailed instructions to colleagues to “hide the decline” in temperatures and to pressure editors of academic journals to blackball the work of “climate skeptics.” After claiming that the original climate data had been destroyed in the 1980s, Jones was caught urging his CRU colleagues to “delete as appropriate” data requested under Britain’s freedom of information laws.

Michael Mann, director of Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center, is one of the lead authors of the U.N.’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change report. Mann was the originator of the “hockey stick” graph that supposedly proved that the Earth’s temperature was at the highest level in recorded history. However, it also appeared to eliminate both the Medieval Warm Period, in which surface temperatures were higher than they are today, and Europe’s “Little Ice Age.” In 2003, Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre exposed the flawed methodology behind Mann’s hockey stick. The recent e-mail leak led another scientist to quip: “Dr. Mann is in transition from Penn State to State Pen. We can only hope he does a better job with license plates.” Mann has been a committee chairman for the National Academy of Sciences and a member of multiple NAS panels and committees.

James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose records were also cited as evidence, second only to the CRU data, of incontrovertible man-made global warming. McIntyre also caught Hansen engaging in the same sort of statistical manipulation in which past temperatures were lowered and recent ones “adjusted” to convey the false impression that the nonexistent warming trend was accelerating. After trying to block McIntyre’s IP address, NASA was forced to back down from its claim that 1998 was the hottest year in U.S. history.

Al Gore, Former Vice President Al Gore is the author of “An Inconvenient Truth,” star of the 2006 Oscar-winning movie of the same name and winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless efforts to limit economic development in industrialized countries with a cap-and-trade scheme. Many experts agree that such a system would increase food and energy prices, while wasting trillions of dollars on alternative energy sources (in which Gore is heavily invested). Gore’s case rests on the now-discredited theory that carbon dioxide emissions (which are increasing) are heating up the Earth’s atmosphere, even though actual global temperatures have been declining for at least a decade.
These five, though far from being the only ones, are among the top perpetrators of the Great Global Warming Hoax. They should never be taken seriously again.

Facts cant be denied, the world sees these clowns as thieves who're attempting to pursue this for thier own personal gain, of coure, those in the climate change MARKET, hopefully wont be employed much longer.
40
@39: Sources, River, sources. Every river has its source. Also, let's see some actual data, rather than your wild (and as-yet unfounded) accusations.
I already addressed the issue of "hide the decline" in my previous post, and it's not actually what you think it is. Read it and shut up.
I should also mention that "cap-and-trade" is intended to be applied to already industrialized nations, not ones that are currently building up their infrastructure. Try to understand the issues before jabbering at others about them.
Also, Dr. Mann was cleared of any wrongdoing by a special investigation set up by his superiors at Penn State. Similarly, the House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee found that there was no credible case against Dr. Jones.
Seriously; you're a wacko conspiracy theorist clinging to wishful thinking and a bizarre perceived notion of exploitation. Think about it; what monetary gain is there for anyone to fabricate climate change?
Now show me some cold hard data demonstrating that the Earth is not warming due to our actions.
41
It’s pretty simple, VenomBash, no matter what information you get, you, as an ENVIRO-ZEALOT will dispute anything that invalidates your assumption of global warming. It would destroy your wannabe public image. And the fact: Mann was not tried by a jury of his piers, but by political zealots who make money from the fraud. (That’s like the White House claiming innocence over election tampering because White House spokesmen says so.) And I see NO clear cut evidence that Dr. Jones was exonerated by the world opinion, which so far, makes a difference. But I do see, on the net, his own admission and corroboration that Mann even defrauded him.
But, you, being one of the enviro-Know-it-alls and zealous basement hominids cannot explain how scientists, drilling ice cores in the Arctic, found vegetation in the ice, carbon dating back approximately 6000 years to a time when man and NO so called Dangerous infrastructure. The concept, begs the question, how did this get here? Of course, if you the Enviro-know-it-alls could have their explanation, George Bush would be tarred and feathered in some LAMESTREAM media. Carbon climate warming is a farce, and scientifically proven. One simple proven explanation for the vegetation’s existence is the fact that over the millennium, our ice has proceeded and receded when man had NO carbon emissions other then a campfire. Hahahahaha (we need to tax those Geico cavemen)
But today, the insecurity of know-it-alls’ dictates control over their lamented emotional state of BULLSHIT. Just like the previously mentioned criminals, who have proven nothing, ENVIRO-ZEALOTS can’t tell the difference between junk science, and a marketing ploy, which influences their paranoia and emotional instability. Clearly, are you dumb enough to think that Al, Michael, Dr Jones, and other climatologists DON’T get paid for their political opinion that they are employed to create? You need to get out more!!! Climate control and the assumption that MAN did it, is conspired by the previously mentioned criminals. And by the way, I was at the grassy knoll where I heard JFK say, “I need this parade like I need a hole in my head.”
42
Ok, VenomGash, here's another one for ya.. only this time you'll have a hard time denying this fact, as it seems Lord Monckton of the UK is now formally pressing the UK criminal Authorities to investigate and compile charges against the CRU and all the scientific communities who have defrauded the world on thier SO-CALLED climate FRAUD. Seems the criminals dont want to turn over the computer program used to DEFRAUD the world. Lord Monckton (A very influencial man in the Global Climate world) goes on to say that he has requested the US Senate, House of Reps, and American Authorities to join him in investigating, in his words, "the Concpiracy" of the scientists who have mislead the world. Nice chap Lord Monckton, he doesnt like being made a fool of, unlike you. So, I'll tellya what, OLD CHAP, here's the site. http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2009/11/cr…

NEXT VICTIM, PAAAUUUHHHHLEEEEESSSSEE!!!!!
43
Ok, VenomGash, here's another one for ya.. only this time you'll have a hard time denying this fact, as it seems Lord Monckton of the UK is now formally pressing the UK criminal Authorities to investigate and compile charges against the CRU and all the scientific communities who have defrauded the world on thier SO-CALLED climate FRAUD. Seems the criminals dont want to turn over the computer program used to DEFRAUD the world. Lord Monckton (A very influencial man in the Global Climate world) goes on to say that he has requested the US Senate, House of Reps, and American Authorities to join him in investigating, in his words, "the Concpiracy" of the scientists who have mislead the world. Nice chap Lord Monckton, he doesnt like being made a fool of, unlike you. So, I'll tellya what, OLD CHAP, here's the site. http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2009/11/cr…

NEXT VICTIM, PAAAUUUHHHHLEEEEESSSSEE!!!!!
44
@41: Yet again, you make wild accusations without citing any actual evidence. You may say lots of things, but to make me believe you, I'll need to see some evidence. If you heard of some inexplicable (under current theory) information, send me the link to the site listing this evidence. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

@42, 43: I'm not even going to try denying that fact. It is uncontested that Lord Monckton thinks that climatologists are up to no good. See, all that you've proven is that cranky conspiracy theorists like you have been suing people in an effort to further harass scientists.
Orly Taitz has repeatedly sued on the basis that she thinks Obama's not a natural-born citizen. Does the fact that she's sued mean anything? Nope! The fact that Lord Monckton sued only means that he thinks that crimes were committed. There is not even a sliver of evidence to back his story up.
Lord Monckton, might I remind you, is not exactly a reliable or trustworthy fellow. He thought that the best way to fight HIV/AIDS is to regularly screen the entire population and QUARANTINE INDEFINITELY anyone found to be infected. In short, he advocated fascism rather than medical research (http://search.opinionarchives.com/Summar…). Additionally, the non-partisan fact-checking organization PolitiFact has rated him "Pants on Fire" (even upgrading him to a special "Britches on Fire" ranking) based on his comments on the Copenhagen climate change treaty (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/…).

And seriously, stop with the "NEXT VICTIM, PAAAUUUHHHHLEEEEESSSSEE!!!!!"
When you've bitten off more than you can chew, the correct course of action is not to ask for more.
45
Yanno, ColonClash, the data from the climate research is contained in computer data. That data is sealed from the public as the IPCC does, specifically, and I mean Mann and his criminal cronies, don’t want the world to see it. They're making doctored claims of espionage to support their exaggerated claims in order to conceal their complicity so that their research institutions will continue to get federal money, tax dollars to pay their wages. ( The good Drs. are just attempting to COVER THEIR ASSES while protecting the REDISTRIBUTED U.S. WEALTH.) (tax dollars to their otherwise parasitical pocketbooks.)

Wasn’t it you who questioned believing the bible, without question? I would much prefer to believe the Bible, than Michael Mann and his money grubbing, junk science, associates.

I have read the intercepted emails from Mann and his cronies... and clearly, they're attempting to hide data from the public, they are also attempting to elude critics who would EXPOSE their fraud. Unfortunately, the English version of the FREEDOM of INFORMATION act does not provide transparency in the US... however, LOL

The FREEDOM of Information ACT in the US does… hahahaha. In fact, Senator Inhof has called for a senatorial investigation into Mann and his Criminal Cronies, and though Barbara Boxer will die trying to suppress the request from the good Senator Inhof, this is NOT going away anytime soon. Come November, and shortly thereafter, you’ll see Subpoenas flying around like oil slicked pelicans, and the so-called Global Warming Debate will get dropped like a steaming hunk of bovine afterbirth. It will clearly expose the junk science criminals who’re plucking low hanging fruit from American Wealth.

Additionally, the Senate has agreed to vote on, debate, and drop the EPA’s power to regulate global warming, this week, in fact. It remains to be seen which progressive liberals are willing to stick their heads into this political anchor chain.
46
@45: "the data from the climate research is contained in computer data". Wow. You're really demonstrating a clear understanding of the situation here. By the way, data is a plural noun, not a singular noun.
And it makes sense that the databanks would be restricted-access. Does NASA just allow any Joe Schmo to delve through their files pertaining to space research? Nope. Does the Pentagon let non-researchers look at its research pertaining to new military technologies? Hell no. It's standard practice for a research institution to make its research and data public only at its discretion.
If you think the "intercepted" (read as "stolen") emails (or rather, excerpts of emails with little context) are so damning, why not tell me how you arrived at that conclusion? I'd say this is another example of you believing what you want to believe and ignoring any facts that conflict with your tidy little worldview.
I wasn't sure what you meant by "drop the EPA's power to regulate global warming". Turns out they're scheduled to vote on whether to stop the EPA from enforcing Federal law pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions. The bill's extremely unlikely to even get a simple majority in the Senate, doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing the House, and would be vetoed by President Obama anyway. So no, they're not going to let the pollution resume willy-nilly.
By the way, oil-soaked pelicans can't fly. The petroleum fucks up their pinion feathers.
And again you continue making claims and accusations without supplying a single shred of evidence to back up your point. If there really was so much evidence proving that anthropogenic climate change was a hoax (maybe an oxymoronic one?), you'd be able to point me towards some of it. Your link to Lord Monckton's crankiness was pathetic in that regard, by the way. Lawsuits prove nothing at all if they haven't been decided.

I should mention that you're really reaching with "ColonClash". "VenomGash" and "VenomBash" were okay, "VenomBag" and "VenomTard" were downright leotarded, but "ColonClash" doesn't even sound like my name. Congratulations, you're an idiot. And I still prefer "VENOMJAWS".
47
LOL, here we go again, VenomSplat. While you seem to insist that you, and only you, is privy to any discernible evidence on global warming, the truth is, I could dump a 15 yard truckload of concrete data and your tiny cranium and protruding forehead, and you would deny it. And like Darwin’s theory of evolution, global warming will fade into the smaller paragraphs of science. (Teachers will have to find another way to become WARDS of the state) Recite after me, One flew east, one flew west…. One flew over the Teechers nest.

Mann’s fraud is validated and documented in his captured emails, no wait, HACKED email responses, to other frauds, who’re aiding and contributing to Mann’s manipulation of numbers, as well as his omissions, and deceitful objectivity for financial and political gain.

Furthermore, erroneous, insignificant, unimportant weather data is NOT as significant as national security issues, or military secrets, or even industrial espionage. So please, don’t compare the necessity for secrecy on warming issues.. LOL (that’s a joke) Mann is hiding his data, as he states in his emails, for the purpose of creating FALSE readings and a favorable political opinion on his, otherwise, Global Cooling data. He’s a fraud, just like our teachers who emotionally fuck up the minds of children, children who are too innocent to be indoctrinated by emotional pedophiles, political zealots, and know-it-alls, who call themselves teachers. Teachers just suck the blood outa the tax base and return little to our children and our social needs. While religion should refrain from pedagogy, Leechers should refrain from beating up our kids with political junk science.
48
If you have a "15 yard truckload" (whatever that means) of data disproving anthropogenic climate change, why haven't you shown me ANY of it? The argument of "oh, I COULD tell you, but you wouldn't listen" is the argument of a three year old. What's next? Are you going to call me a stupid poophead and tell me to go away? By the way, I don't claim to have any sort of monopoly on knowledge pertaining to climate change. All I know is that I know more than you seem to. Prove my wrong by linking to all this evidence you're talking about.
And if the emails are so damning, why can't you explain how the prove (or even imply) anything? (I should mention that FactCheck.org, among others, doesn't share your opinion of the stolen emails. http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate…) You just keep ranting and raving about how you're right and I'm just a fanatic, without showing the slightest shred of evidence to back up your story. You seem to have forgotten that in the scientific realm, we draw conclusions from evidence, not from rumors or our own personal wishes. You can live in your own little world where nothing we do affects the global climate if you want to, but don't call it reality.
I'm not even going to get started on your views on evolution through natural selection. You cannot claim to be a scientist and credibly state that evolution as described by Darwin is not true. We have seen evolution through natural selection happen IN RECORDED HISTORY. You just lost any shred of credibility to which you might have pretended.

Also, it's not "erroneous, insignificant, unimportant weather data". It's ice cores, tree ring data, and a whole host of other measurements that you seem intent on ignoring in your crusade to have your own personal beliefs vindicated by the world. Like it or not, it's standard practice for research to remain private until it is published for the edification of the public. Don't pretend that private databanks imply cloak-and-dagger conspiracies.
You strike me as having somewhat of an intellectual Napoleon complex; since you yourself are ignorant, you seek to discredit the intelligent and educated so that they'd be brought down to the same level as you. Actually taking some classes would be a better choice, River.

Again: cite some evidence demonstrating:
-climate data was falsified
-anthropogenic climate change does not exist
-evolution does not proceed by natural selection
Show me the evidence or GTFO.
49
You're not a poophead VenomDork, you're an airhead. And everybody knows that airheads are sensitive to warming trends. All that hot air between your ears was NOT caused by man, it was caused by some Anthropogneic affect, Or perhaps, 60 million buffalo farting on the prairie got caught in your cranium?
50
and ummmm VenomPlunk, every time I give you EVIDENCE, you deny it. so shadup!!!! You climate Zealots always claim that you possess some imbued quality of evidence has only been bestowed upon yourselves. That's what makes you zealots.
51
@49: "All that hot air between your ears was NOT caused by man, it was caused by some Anthropogneic [sic] affect [sic]"
Glad to see that you still don't have the slightest idea what "anthropogenic" means. Also, you flatter me by suggesting that my cranium is comparable to the Great Plains in size. My brain's just about normal size, I'm afraid.

@50: I haven't denied any evidence yet. You haven't shown me any that proves anything. All you've cited is some claims by an anti-climate change web page (which were essentially your argument rattled off by someone else) and an article talking about how Lord Monckton was suing.
You have repeatedly claimed that there is loads of evidence showing that climate change is a huge fraud, but you haven't cited or linked to any of it. Show me raw data. Show me clearly damning correspondence amongst scientists, or at least show me (or link to) the correspondence and explain how it proves that fraud has occurred. For someone so sure of yourself, you seem awfully scared to back up your claims.
By the way, that Murkowski bill you were so happy and confident about got SHUT DOWN in the Senate. Boo yah!