While the climate is complicated, the climate science is not. The U.S. winter temperatures plummeted from 1950 to 1979. The scientists reacted to this with a "global cooling" scare, as reported by Science News in 1975 (PDF). As such, NASA warned of a new ice age by the year 2020. Then, after 1979, temperatures got much warmer, so NASA's James Hansen began the global warming scare (PDF).

But after the year 2000, temperatures began to plummet again. So NASA and NOAA responded with the only sensible solution. They altered the data to eliminate the earlier warmth and the current cooling.

But that wasn't sufficient for keeping up with the cooling temperatures, so they renamed "global warming" as "climate change."

It is for these and other reasons that climate science undercuts its efforts with fraudulence.

> "Sorry, once again you're completely wrong and making shit up."

No, you are wrong and making things up.

> "I never said any of that at all."

You never said any of what you wrote?

> "I challenge you to prove me wrong"

Yes, you are wrong.

> "D'OH!"

What's that all about? Homer Simpson or something?

> "I came back for more because you bold faced lied about me in a public
> thread"

Did not.

> "Why have you continued to come back for more time and time again after at
> least 3 times stating you were 'bored'"

Because you are entertaining. You do get boring here and there, true, but stuff like the "move to Somalia" that's entertaining.

> "you didn't read most of my posts"

I read some of your replies, even if I don't take them seriously.

> "'done with this thread'"

Did I say that? (to paraphrase that cop, if Obama can say we are out of Iraq and then come back, why can't I?)

> "(proving you a liar)"

No, you're the liar.

> "I think most of those following this thread have seen which of us is wrong,
> angry, and frustrated, and it ain't me buddy."

I don't know who is or isn't following the thread, and I don't really care or know if anyone following cares. You obviously do, attention seeker that you are.

> "I feel the need to ask, did you get a number of good temporary tattoos
> before you got that 'diploma'? (It sure is seeming more and more like you got
> it from a Cracker Jack box, your complete lack of reading comprehension
> makes it seem unlikely you could have 'earned' one)"

This is the kind of ridiculous statement that makes you "funny." Keep it up.

I've not violated this rule at any point. I've every right to downvote comments in which unsupported epithets and slurs are being levied against me for no other reason than my viewpoints are judged as unfavorable to the interlocutor's preconceived biases.

If you think that my use of the comment downvote is in violation of the sift rules, then I'm sure you've sent the exact same message to the many other downvoters of my comments and those who have resorted to name-calling and ad hominem attacks instead of civility.

Unless, of course, you're just on a witch hunt, in which case, I welcome your abuse.
You better check yo self.

For as long as it's still on youtube, I've playlisted Adam Curtis' latest documentary, "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace," and submitted it to VS:

http://videosift.com/video/Adam-Curtis-All-Watched-over-by-Machines-of-Loving-Grace

For as long as it's still on youtube, I've playlisted Adam Curtis' latest documentary, "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace," and submitted it to VS:

http://videosift.com/video/Adam-Curtis-All-Watched-over-by-Machines-of-Loving-Grace

For as long as it's still on youtube, I've playlisted it and submitted it to VS:

http://videosift.com/video/Adam-Curtis-All-Watched-over-by-Machines-of-Loving-Grace


In reply to this comment by Ti_Moth:
Adam Curtis is brilliant.

He talks about the effects of the altitude and exposure on the brain and cognition.


In reply to this comment by jonny:
I don't have time to watch it right now, so I thought I'd just ask - Why does this belong in the brain channel?

In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
*brain

Bernal's a great part of town -- Cortland's like its own little enclave in the City.

In reply to this comment by shagen454:
Well, until I moved to what I call the only slice of "Appalachia" on Bernal Heights.

The speaker uses the word 'debunk' in an explanation of what he's doing.

In reply to this comment by Truckchase:
In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
*debunked

Sorry.. quick clarification; are you saying the content of this video is debunked or that it debunks the industry claims of sugar's lack of harm? Thanks!

Check out this sneak preview of the Manifesting the Mind film.

Check out this sneak preview of the Manifesting the Mind film.

Yes, I'm saying that it works for me. And there are a bunch of other versions on youtube to replace it, regardless of what Tabitha Jones says.

In reply to this comment by brain:
How is it fixed? I still get the same error. You're telling me it works for you?

In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
In reply to this comment by brain:
DEAD
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Tabitha Jones .

Don't sweat it.. It's fixed.

I have a feeling the "cat's outta the bag" on this one..
so to speak.

In reply to this comment by brain:
DEAD
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Tabitha Jones .

Don't sweat it.. It's fixed.

I have a feeling the "cat's outta the bag" on this one..
so to speak.

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
It's "champing at the bit" not "chomping", isn't it? Or are both equally valid, or even interchangeable?

It's "chomping" at the bit..as a horse does when it's ready to race and is being held back by the reins secured by the "bit" in its teeth.