Are you objecting to my use of the term "last several decades?" I borrowed it from this quote in their report. I didn't need to delve much deeper to make a simple point, especially to an OP that doesn't seem to appreciate the difference between climate and weather.
Dude, the planet hasn't warmed for 18 years, as was predicted by alarmists. If we aren't delving deep? That's as simple as it gets. The "models" upon which the entire theory is based have performed so badly, that they've had to come up with 2 speculations(1. the warming is hiding at the bottom of the ocean, 2. Chinese pollution is both causing and preventing Global Warming, at the same time). If neither of those speculations pans? The entire theory blows up.
That is the reality, delving as shallowly as possible.
And before you go all PPP on me, I have no desire to debate this or any other facet of the climate change argument. Been there, done that. I frankly don't give a crap what anyone else thinks about it at this point.
Ha! Like this wasn't headed here! Too bad. You're in our domain now, like it or not.
For the rest of you: the bolded is basically all that's left of the Global Warming argument. It's funny how I keep hearing "I believe in Global Warming" now. It's become about faith. Faith, from the very people who decry religious faith every chance they get, and talk about science as if they know it well?
Hilarious Irony. That's what Global Warming is now: a continued source of humor for those of us who posses at least an above-average intellect, as I'm sure the rest of this thread shows.
Are you climate scientist or just repeating what you hear on Fox News?
Speaking of hilarity I have a question: it is possible to respond to a point you don't like, without adding the tired, old "Fox News" thing as the mutually eclusive alternative?
Btw, if you've been keeping score on the media lately? Fox News has been dragging the rest of the media into real stories, they should have been on like stink on schit from day 1, for about 2 years now.
In fact, it is the rest of the media, not Fox, that has lost objectivity and therefore, credibility, over the entire Obama "experience". The media is currently contorting like a Twister game now trying to distance themselves from the Gruberish, and what they've said about him/it.
I mean: dude, that's what is actually happening, right now, in reality. Fox isn't our problem. We know them, and they are honest about who they are. Real media corruption, from people pretending/lying about being objective, and who they are, from everybody else? That is our problem.
Not to hijack this thread, but I have to comment on the latest Orwellian twist: Net Neutrality. The narrative now being sold is that Net Neutrality is like the Fairness Doctrine, that is web traffic has to be equally conservative and liberal!!
Now anyone paying attention knows that is 100% NOT what Net Neutrality is. (In case you don't know it's a rule stating that internet companies cannot speed up some parts of the web and slow down others.) But lobbyists figured out if you couch any argument in liberal vs conservative terms you can get people to vote against their own interests. Heck, some people would give up both kidneys if Fox News said Obama wanted Americans to have kidneys.
See? What did I tell you guys? This is the Rasputin of issues. As long as Google and Amazon exist, are led by liberals who remain politically active, this issue will never die. It's hilarious that you are talking about other people not knowing this issue.
You don't know this issue. I love how you brush by the central agument here to make a political point, and accuse others of doing so at the same time!
This is about Google and Amazon getting bandwidth cheaper because they use more of it, and the ISPs saying "no, you pay for what you use, just like everybody else". I don't care what the latest spin is, this is the central argument. Google wants a volume deal = buy huge chunks of bandwidth for cheaper, and then wants to crowd out other content providers, by buying so much at the package deal rate, that their competitors(and btw, the rest of us) become noticeably slower.
And, as long as D pols will take Google's $, we will see "HR - Infinity:
A bill to implement Net Neutrality", be brought up and voted down.
The Democrats are on the side of Big Google, and it's the rest of us that will suffer if Net Neutrality ever passes, because the remaining bandwith Google doesn't buy, will be smaller, and therefore will cost us more.
You have it exactly backwards: it is Google and Amazon et al who have been, and will continue, using whatever means available to them, including turning this into a partisan liberal/conservative thing, when all it really is corporate power move to the hoop, that keeps getting blocked by those of us who do, in fact, know better.