brenthutch

same thing happened to me in NJ but it was a public option. What is your point?

As an Airborne Ranger I hosted a contingent of French Comandos during an exchange with my LRSD unit. The French were blown away with our POW's (privatly owned wepons) They said if such wepons were availabel in France that even an honest man would turn into a bank rober. Their point of view was as informitave as it was shocking. It seemed their understanding of POW's was inversly preportional to their exposure to them. This prompted my First Sgt come up with an old latin phrase: aben-aden-donus..... aint been nowhere aint done nothin dont know sh*t to describe such people. A perfect example of this can be seen on utube. It is a congresswomen advocating the banning of "barral shrouds" Worth a look. Oh BTW aimed semi auto is vastly more lethal than full auto and one would know this if one was not abenadendonus (or French).

the lapses in logic are unforgivable

Because Kalland is an uneducated douchebag

Oh one more thing, I keep it at a fourth grade level so you can keep up.

fair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest

Too easy... Given the choice of hyperbole or supstance you jump to the former. Try to deal with the supstance. Oh thats rite u cant. (now attack my spuling und puntuation)

Ok June bug, sarcasm aside, reply to my point that tax payer financed, raw data should be available to the public without being filtered. If we were interested on pure science it shoulc not matter.

Crickets....crickets.....

NASA's data is our data, not some "politically motivated jerk" that works for NASA. We can all look at it together. Unless........

My point was that just because one can not spell or punctuate does not mean that their ideas have no merit.

Apparently you dont understand what you write.

hoisted by his own petard

Thanks Kallend. good read! I quite like this part. "Mann explained. Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted. David Rind told colleagues about inconsistent figures in the work for a giant international report: "As this continuing exchange has clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make global warming go away!" Yes AGW is unquestionable, the science is settled.

I originally asked for rebuttal of claims made on the first video. The response was: Spoiler: He's a Bible-thumping moron with no science background and thinks everyone with AIDS should be quarantined. Then I asked about a second person's claims, and the response was: A conservative politician with no science background? At no time did anyone take on the factual claims made by these people. Please refute the facts, not the folks.

The ad hominem argument is the last resort for one who has run out of ideas.

so you think that global warming is silly???

Then why do contractors still help run drone strikes in PK?

Apparently it IS Mann made! (Dr. Michael Mann for those on the left)

I would juxtapose his words to me with his emails. I would not have to do anything I would leave it up to him to deconflict the two.

Dr. Mann from Penn State AKA Mr. Global Warming IS a scientest and by his own admission has no idea why the climate is not changing as he predicted it would.

To be specific, I asked him about the lack of warming in the last 10 years. He told me that there was no slowing of the warming trend and that the planat was still warming

Is Dr Michael Mann (Introduced to me as "Mr global warming") good enough for you? During a 1/2 hour conversation at a local watering hole, we shot the global warming breeze, about 6 months ago. It turns out that he was lying to my face and used data he knew to be false to support his position.

They are both complete jackasses to be sure, and I am sure they are wrong on every point, I just need someone to help me refute their data.

Even the second guy?