"You do realize that in the Carboniferous Age the continents were in completely different places don't you? There was no Gulf Stream the global currents were different and they had a different effect on the climate. That's one of the problems with comparing past climates with today. No one ever takes into consideration plate tectonics."

not sure what that has to do with the problem of taking the 1,000 ppm of carbon dioxide the plants took out of the air and put underground, back out from underground and into the air again, without altering the physical behavior of the atmosphere with respect to infrared radiation. unless you're saying the location at which the carbon dioxide is removed and emitted makes a difference.

"So does this mean you don't believe in the Big Bang? DNA? Quantum mechanics? Manned flight? (Well, I guess airplanes are just barely outside your 100 year limit.)"

I myself do not believe in the evidence regarding these newfangled "pharmaceuticals" whose efficacy is not scientifically proved, only indicated by statistical correlations. there are many notable scientists who do not agree with their use; indeed, the science is still out. when i feel poorly, i merely have my local apothecary prepare a powerful physick to regulate my humors, and thus shall i continue until there is more consensus on this matter.

"If climate change is being caused by human behavior, then [X condition] will be observable."

Well, in most branches of science, this would constitute a nice example of passing that test:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/images/hansen1998a.jpg

i.e., ten years of predictions that were pretty much on the nose. And if you plot the next 10 years, you'll see they were on the money as well. That, from a 20 year old model at the dawn of climate change awareness.

now that you mention it, though, has there ever been a prediction from a climate change denialist that has been verified? how is it you guys are so certain in your beliefs, then?

"global Warming" is following "Global Cooling" of the 1970's... both issues shoved down people's throats by the Politically Correct Thought monitors. "

well, that's your interpretation of Time Magazine running a hysterical article in 1974 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.htmlquoting Reid A. Bryson and Donald Oilman about the dangers of global cooling. If those names sound familiar, it's because both are now widely quoted as saying there is no global warming.

Time also quotes Kenneth Hare as saying that if the drought continues people will go hungry, with no reference to cooling.

In fact, what Hare said re cooling at the time was: "The slow cooling trend in parts of the northern hemisphere during the last few decades is similar to others of natural origin in the past, and thus whether it will continue or not is unknown".

So, your argument is that Time magazine is the weapon of the Politically Correct Thought Montiros, and because a couple of guys got it wrong on global cooling 30 years ago, we should believe them now about global warming, because they're bound to get it right sooner or later?

anybody remember Lauch Faircloth making fun of Mario Cuomo's name in the 1984 (i think) election campaign? 'Cuomo, Cuomo, Cuomo'? As Saturday Night Live Weekend Update put it "apparently forgetting that his name was Lauch Faircloth".

and obama takes it! bee-yoo-ti-ful

why quibble about mcCain's acceptance of support from hagee, when he already accepts support from the Republican party?

if northern mexico were bombarding texas with literally thousands of rockets, because after all, texas was stolen from mexico, would anybody expect, let alone demand, that the US not only refrain from any sort of military response, but in fact, continue to provide fuel, electricity, and various other logistical support to the area, without even a cutback? (assuming that it was in the first place)

"Kazakhstan number one exporter of potassium.

Other countries have inferior potassium"

"And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades."

Reminds me of the social studies class story:

Teacher: "And the population of China is so vast, that if you lined them up two abreast and marched them off a cliff, the line would never end, because the population is increasing so rapidly"

Student: "But how, if they were marching?"

"Fluff? A president who won't say the Pledge of Allegiance disturbs me. Does that make me a simpleton?"

Yeah, li'l bit. Doesn't mean you aren't otherwise a nice person, though.

"Because if I adopted a daughter from Bangladesh, and truly did love her like my own, how would I be able to stand those attacks on her? Moreover, why would I then re-align myself with her attackers? Bush and his slimy sleazeballs attack her race and her identity, and McCain's reaction is to become a loyal supporter and central bulwark of their illegal war?"

It's statesmanlike. Like when you're the vice president and your party doesn't like gay people and you have a gay daughter.

for boys and girls because they are different... hmmm... reminds me of something, can't put my finger on it......

seems dubious.... first of all, there's clintonophobia, but there's no obamaphobia. secondly, everybody's saying how clinton is more of the same, but obama and mccain, they're both agents of change. i can see obama fans going for mccain more than clinton fans.

we probably could have nailed bin laden and dispersed al qaida

i'm so sick of seeing the democrats knock each other out while the republicans just jot down notes for the coming election. this is like those bizarre inter-church divisions, where the members of the Divine Church of Christ Triumphant, Northern consider the members of the Divine Church of Christ Triumphant, Western to be the spawn of Satan.