Serowbot wrote on 05/13/14 at 16:16:21:


Is it Mint? Try the Opera browser....

Serowbot wrote on 05/13/14 at 17:28:22:


Opera has those too, many of the same ones as FF...you can run them side-by-side as you get used to the new browser.

One more red-faced angry post here, and then lets indeed have a cooler environment to continue our dialog.  

North Country wrote:
he, she, it?.. sounds like your wife is a nut sir, and a vile nasty one at that.

“I have NEVER seen posts here attacking a member's family until now.”

Mr. Shorty, if your wife wishes to chime in and spew such a vile attack toward me (a part of a family myself) such as: “She (my wife) thinks she, is a he, based on her, he, its”….then I suggest sir that you are living in a glass house (if you get my drift). Perhaps your wife should head back to her kitchen.

Whaaa, sob… always the victim aren’t you sir.

********************************************************

“Matthew Shepard was not killed by anti-gay cowboys.  He was murdered by a drug crazed lover.” Mr. Mark

…have you no shame sir!

Revisionist history really pisses me off. I put as much stock into this particular bullsh!t as I do any of your  bullsh!t... That is to say, none.

Note:
Journalist Stephen Jimenez's The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths about the Murder of Matthew Shepard makes the bombshell claim that illicit drug use, not homophobia, was the central factor in the gay University of Wyoming student's brutal 1998 murder. Shepard truthers in the right-wing media have pounced on the book to assail hate crime legislation and the larger push for LGBT rights. But Jimenez's argument is tainted by its reliance on wild extrapolation, the use of highly questionable and often inconsistent sources, paranoia that critics of his work are engaged in a "cover-up" of politically sensitive truths, and the cavalier dismissal of any evidence that runs contrary to his central thesis.

The truth about Matthew's murder is that ignorant hateful juvenile redneck boys playing a lethal game of "Smear the Q---r", a game that they learned in the third grade schoolyard as societal instruction on how to hate the LGBT individuals, decided that they would roll Matthew because "everybody knows those people ain't like us, and deserve what they get, haw haw". Aw, ma, we was just havin' a little fun with the f*g, haw haw".

It's a classic case of brutal gay rolling. End of story. Why anyone would even pay attention to this deranged, hateful lying drivel Jimenez is profiting on is beyond comprehension, except that in the twisted, deluded conservative minds of gay haters.


It is so tiring to refute the bizarre notions of those who live in an alternate reality… Think/believe whatever floats your boat people…the earth is only 6000 years old, the moon is made of green cheese, we know this because the moon landings were a hoax. Climate change is not happening, it’s just an attempt to fool people because________ (fill in the blank). Drug crazed homo’s murdered Matthew Shepard, liberals hate America, Bush was the best president ever! Saddam had WMD and caused 9/11..And God only knows whatever else you guys believe
.
Go for it. This TT thread is a joke. A fool’s paradise occupied by the useful and gullible tools of corporate America propaganda.

We've beat the 97% thing to death. Personally, I believe I scored a technical knockout on sew because I presented more evidence that the 97% is false than he did it was true. He did come up with good evidence against the 32,000 report, I'll give him that. However, I found credible reports with hundreds of names saying they do not agree with IPCC. If these represent 3%, then that means there are hundreds of thousands of climate scientist which doesn't seem reasonable. Secondly, the Climategate emails remove the "holier than thou" high ground the scientist retreat to when challenged.

This is how you debate topics, take one small section and beat the snot out of it.

Need a new GW (sorry, climate change) topic to hash out. (Not the kind you smoke).

I've seen the no warming for 17 years before, but I've never seen a rebuttal from climate change scientist to explain this. anyone have a readable explanation?...

sea temps are rising under mining the ice

--Steve

This might get me a 15 yard penalty for piling on or perhaps un-sportsmanship for a late hit, but going back up the post a bit, we were discussing how the climate change scientist were able to influence 'consensus' by bringing mafia style or union thugary pressure on those scientist that stepped out of line. The guy listed below is no one I've heard of (other than Al Gore, how many of us can name a 'climate scientist) but apparently in his field, he was a big shot.

Professor Lennart Bengtsson - the leading scientist who three weeks ago signalled his defection to the climate sceptic camp by joining the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation - has now dramatically been forced to resign from his position.

His views on the weakness of the "consensus" haven't changed. But as he admits in his resignation letter, he has been so badly bullied by his alarmist former colleagues that he is worried his health and career will suffer.

Bengtsson's recruitment by the GWPF (the London-based think tank set up by former Chancellor Lord Lawson) represented a huge coup for the climate realist cause. The Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - was by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

But this, of course, is why he has been singled out for especial vitriol by the climate alarmist establishment - as he describes in his resignation letter.

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen.

It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years. Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.


This is more shameful conduct by the climate "community". As a general point, it seems to me that, if climate change is as serious a problem as the climate "community" believes, then it will require large measures that need broadly based commitment from all walks of our society. Most "skeptics" are not acolytes of the Koch brothers, but people who have not thus far been convinced that the problem is as serious as represented or that the prescribed policies (wind, solar especially) provide any form of valid insurance against the risk. These are people that the climate "community" should be trying to persuade. Bengtsson’s planned participation in GWPF seemed to me to be the sort of outreach to rational skeptics that ought to be praiseworthy within the climate "community". Instead, the "community" has extended the fatwa. This is precisely the sort of action and attitude that can only engender and reinforce contempt for the "community" in the broader society.