that’s a good lil sheep.

That’s no different than using Bill O’Reilly as your only source…same bs, different side of the argument.

You’re doing exactly what the Climategate emails prove - the left’s only recourse, now that many of the global warming “facts” have been revealed as lies, is to attack people who tell the other side of the story. So you go after Sharyl Attkisson for simply letting people know that the media don’t give people all the information they need to make up their own minds.

Oops, I mentioned the Climategate emails again. If I posted a few, you’d delete them, just like you did last night. Closed-minded intelectual cowards.

Media Matters…too freaking funny. And you say OTHER people aren’t “reality-based”!Why not just use Rush Limbaugh or Nancy Pelosi as a source? They’re every bit as objective.

My apologies to all, I thought I was discussing this stuff with grown-ups.

I did that, and the people who run this site deleted that part of the email - the only part that matters.

After whining that “non-factual material does not get posted” on this site, they delete the inconvenient facts. Do you honestly think that a sarcastic video addressing only three or four quotes constitutes substantive refutation of the Climategate emails? You don’t even refute the claims. You show the entire email, then claim it was taken out of context even when the entire email proves it was NOT taken out of context. There are many more you won’t discuss, and apparently, won’t even post on this site. I can’t imagine being that closed-minded.

I asked you again to explain why Al Gore won’t debate, ever, and you refuse for a second time to answer the question. You might want to ask yourself why you won’t answer this. You won’t. You’ll fail to answer the question a third time, pretending that Gore won’t waste his time (he’s not that busy since he doesn’t have a job) on people who are not “reality-based”.

You refer to people who agree with Al Gore (and anonymous scientific nobodies like you) as a “reality-based person”, making it very clear that if you disagree with him, you’re simply out of touch with reality.

People who disagree with you are not “reality-based”? No one with such sophomoric cognitive functions can have any scientific, much less intellectual credibility.

The real answer as to why Al Gore won’t debate is that he’s just like the people who run this site - people who are scared of the truth.

Speaking of which…

“The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years.” You can read all about it, but since you delete parts of emails that prove how dishoest you people are, there’s no reason to go into it.

As Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the Useless Nation’s IPCC Working Group III said a while back:

“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Always follow the money…

(Make sure you delete that part:)

Ahh … let’s celebrate the publication, amid a West European cold snap, of a global warming denier book and publication of an article in Bild. Which is, well, sort of like celebrating The WSJ 16’s publication in The Wall Street Journal.

A book publication proves that, well, all the measurements of temperature have been wrong, that 1000s of scientists are wrong, that the globe has not been warming, and that humanity isn’t having an impact on the planetary system.

Phew … now I can rest better at night.

Thanks again, love your work!

“The “reality” is that there was a massive mining of stolen emails for phrases and words to take out of context.

Every independent review has found that there was not the implications that you assert” [love your grammar, professor]

THAT’S the best you can do? These comments were taken out of context?

“Best …”

1. What you are doing is throwing mud against the wall, with deceptions / etc paramount in your use of this material seeking to wear down people by repeated use of marginal half-truths.

2. Yes. “These comments were taken out of context” and spun and manipulated and … How about “hide the decline” (perhaps the most famous three words of the entire email mining)? Hmmm look at some truth …

Yes, the emails were reviewed - by people just…like…you.

Actually. No.

Of course they found nothing wrong with what the so-called scientists did. Those who performed the reviews agree with the scientists on almost every single issue.

They were not “independent” as you claim, so please summon the courage to be honest about it, and stop lying.

You rabid accusations of a global scientific conspiracy are tiresome.

[deleted ...]
Before you yet again childishly refer to my post as “drivel”, spare me your puerile and irrelevant shots at Wall St, explain to me why Al Gore won’t debate,

Ah … Why won’t Al debate? A constant refrain that seeks to play on public debate on a stage as a legitimate space for determining scientific truth.

A simple truth: a good debater can win with either side of an argument, no matter the actual truth or what the debater believes. The point is to win an argument in the eyes of the behoder(s) rather than determining actual truth. In a public debate space, the person who is ready and willing to spout half-truths and falsehoods with great confidence with little regard for maintaining adherence not just to ‘facts’ but to truthful discussion has a serious advantage over those who seek fidelity to truthful discussion.

Again, from a few years ago,

To debate or not to debate: that is the question

To delude people that there is a “debate” about the fundamentals of climate-change science is a core objective of purveyors of Anti-Science Syndrome suffering Hatred Of a Livable Economic System. A common tactic, that can all too easily gain traction, is to “challenge” scientists or those aligned with science to “debate” with the aim of either of two results:

1.Have the reality-based person (organization) reject the debate challenge (because they are unwilling to give credence to those peddling falsehoods) so that climate skeptics can use this in “see, they’re unwilling to debate because their arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny.
2.Have the reality-based person show up (and speak with caution) to have the (falsehood spewing, gamesmanship player) skeptic run rings around them on the stage to ‘win the audience’.

and just explain how each of these comments from the Climategate emails was taken out of context.

Watch the video above …

And, well, whacking moles isn’t how I prefer to spend my days.

Thanks!

p.s. You take Juan Cole seriously? And you want people to know this?