Global Warming




Global Warming has come to be a hotly contested issue. Are there valid concerns that we should consider, or is Global Warming just the latest manufactured crisis to cash in on the public’s fears and generate new support for global governance, global carbon taxes and other oppressive policies?

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.

Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.

We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”

After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on […] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

“[The Copenhagen treaty on climate change] can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. It’s going to hurt everybody.” – Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show, Nov. 5, 2009

For an environmental insider’s view on the “Green Agenda” and its background and motivations check out The Green Agenda. Also read Lew Rockwell’s Anti-Environmentalist Manifesto.



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

Likes(0)Dislikes(1)

2,943 Comments:

  1. No wonder denalists I have come across refrain from citing their sources and they just keep on repeating discredited claims?

    "At the time of our last discussion, Edward Wegman... had been involved in three cases of plagiarism: a report for the U.S. Congress on climate models, a paper on social networks, a paper on color graphics.

    Each of the plagiarism stories was slightly different: the congressional report involved the distorted copying of research by a scientist (Raymond Bradley) whose conclusions Wegman disagreed with, the social networks paper included copied material in its background section, and the color graphics paper included various bits and pieces by others that had been used in old lecture notes."

    http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2011/06/further_wegman.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 22

    • Wegman, Wegman, Wegman.

      You really do think of yourself as a matador, don'tcha, Evi? You want focus on the flapping cape so your victims don't see the sharpened steel you're trying to shove down our throats.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 21

  2. Tucci, you're blind. You've been calling your opponents "flaming idiots," "warmistas," "fraudsters," "pushers,'" and have been hitting below the belt the entire time without presenting anything that could be considered better proof than the scientific observations confirming AGW. You say the peer review process lacks integrity (as you call it the "pal" review process), while I would counter that Anthony Watts and the like have not done any better. This has become an un-winnable tit-for-tat. You're presenting highly dubious "evidence" of AGW fraud and conspiracy, while I- among others- have presented rational counterarguments backed by scientific observations.

    Your efforts to mislead and confuse are not winning- and neither is your strategy of denigrating your opponents. People seem to be catching on to that.

    The truth of the matter is that many disagree with your conspiracy theories. The minute any one of us calls your stance into question, you go on a tirade about how intellectually superior you think you are and about how dumb and unworthy of living you think your opponents are. Again, that reveals much more about the accuser (you) than the accused. Feeling the need to bully people usually means you've got both a lack of substance and some noticeable mental problems.

    With the amount of time you've been spending on your postings here at the RP forums, it is becoming evident that you aren't the "country GP" you claim yourself to be. Rather, you seem to be a hate-filled robo-troll with way too much time on their hands. That, or you're receiving a salary from one of the Koch Foundation political "charities" to sow misinformation.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 26

    • Jeez, Cameron, you really do hate being accurately diagnosed as the flaming idiot you've proven yourself to be, don'tcha?

      And you're still fixated on Anthony Watts, too. Still no citation on your part of anything he's written that you've claimed to be "cobbled together pseudoscience," of course, but you proved yourself a flaming idiot when you made that assertion.

      Cameron, you've kept trying to "blank out" the Climategate confirmation of how "the climate scene" insiders have been cooking the global temperature databases, cherry-picking their paleoclimate proxies, perverting academic peer review in their own and allied disciplines, concerting extortion against the editors of scientific periodicals, and generally perpetrating the single most damaging and perfidious fraud in the history of the modern world, all violations of professional standards and ethics of which those of us literate in any of the sciences had strong reason to suspect for more than three decades.

      You can sit there in front of your Amiga and expect anybody who's examined the content of that "FOIA2009.zip" archive to buy your load of crap to the effect that nothing BUT "conspiracy" can be accurately applied to what those C.R.U. correspondents were perpetrating?

      Gawd. What's next? Some bullpuckey on your part about how Nixon was NOT a crook? Or that Bubba - America's former Irrumator-in-chief - did not have sex with that woman?

      And you've got the stone-headedness to call ME a troll? Hoo-hah! Cameron, you've spent so much time lurking under the bridge you've forgotten what sunlight looks like.

      And now you're trying the typical "Liberal" fascist's tactics of personal attack. Well, heck. Nothing else is working for you and your fellow True Believers, is it?

      Happens I'm recovering from allowing a cardiothoracic surgeon to get at me with a bone saw and a set of rib spreaders. Three-vessel CABG, and I refuse to take anything stronger than acetaminophen (Tylenol) for the pain. Can't work much just yet, and I don't get much sleep - but I'm okay with typing.

      Much to your distress, Cameron. Ain't that nice?

      So what do you do for a living, Cameron? That's presuming that you do anything for a living at all, mind.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 22

    • Stefan C. Kosikowski

      Good points indeed, Cameron. A paid troll for the fossil fuels industry would only spend time here. I see no comments from the pseudonym (Tucci) on any other thread. One last thing... we must add cowardice to Tucci resume, for to make all these personal attacks without putting your name to the post is the pinnacle of dispicable behavior... and this guy claims to be a doctor... a compasionless doctor who believes in emotionally hurting all those who disagree with him!

      Revealing to the extreme... lies, upon lies, buttressed by more lies.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 16

      • Oh, goodie! Now Stefan says I'm a "paid troll for the fossil fuels industry." News to me. Stefan, you contemptible pile of filth, do you perchance have some magical psychotic insight into just how much I'm supposed to be getting paid, and who's supposed to be paying me? If there's somebody I've got to be invoicing, I'd like to get it under way.

        My usual and customary terms for services rendered include payment in full within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice.

        Hm. This abject putz wonders why I've not authored comments on any of the other threads on this particular Web site (wrong; I posted one on the "War on Drugs" page a day or two ago), but have preponderantly attended to the "Global Warming" thread. Sheesh.

        I've explained much of this already, but Stefan is a putz, and it doesn't hurt to recapitulate. I've been following the preposterous bogosity of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) conjecture-turned-fraud since sometime between 1979 and 1981 (I didn't "go digital" until about 1988, and none of the computers with which I currently work can read 5.25-inch DS/DD floppy diskettes formatted in CP/M, so immediate access to my personal records from that period isn't conveniently available to me at the moment), when I was corresponding with retired engineering professor Petr Beckmann and he published what he'd been learning about this astonishing blunder in his newsletter, *Access to Energy*, and on his dial-in bulletin board system (BBS), "Fort Freedom."

        See http://www.fortfreedom.org/ for an online archive preserving a "snapshot" of the Fort Freedom BBS as it existed in 1989.

        In the years preceding 1989, I had taken some considerable - amicable - issue with Dr. Beckmann over the viral etiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), which I was encountering at that time as local "doctor to the poor." Most of my immunosuppressed patients were either the prior recipients of blood products or people with histories of intravenous drug use (IVDU). These latter not infrequently had co-infection with Hepatitis B and what came that year to be called Hepatitis C, and it was pretty obvious from the outset that we were looking at an infectious cause, almost certainly viral. Heck, the blood banks were using Hepatitis B serological markers as proxies to screen their intakes.

        No really effective antiretroviral agents in 1989 (highly active antiretroviral therapeutic [HAART] multi-drug regimens didn't begin to come into widespread use until about 1993), and Dr. Beckmann's reluctance to credit the evidence for HIV as the pathogen was something about which he and I were wrangling at that time.

        Ah, the "good old days" of the '80s. As regards knowledge about communicable diseases - and the susceptibility of power-lusting "Liberal" fascist politicians like Algore to the preposterous bogosity of man-made global warming as an excuse to pillage the citizenry - they truly sucked.

        Now, is there a thread on this Web site pertinent to "Infectious Diseases"? Nope. What other issue of a scientific nature am I likely to be drawn? Well, there's the "War on Drugs," but that's not really much of a controversy. It's already an abject Nixonian bloody failure, as "Operation Gunwalker" is recently proving.

        Pertinent to that "War on Drugs," are there any indications yet that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of the Heimatsicherheitsdienst Janet Napolitano (among other members of Barry Soebarkah's criminal presidential administration) are going to be hauled off in handcuffs to the International Criminal Court in the Hague for unlawfully waging war against los Estados Unidos Mexicanos?

        No? Well, I guess I might as well spend time (aren't e-mail alerts nice?) dropping by here in the "Global Warming" thread to bash los warmistas.

        After all, I'm supposed to be getting paid for it by "the fossil fuels industry."

        Hey, Stefan, you abject doofus? Who is it I've got to invoice again? Unless you've got a specific name and address, don't waste my time, okay?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 11

        • Stefan C. Kosikowski

          Hey nit-wit... how can anyone here waste YOUR time, except you?

          Sheez, you truly are the weakest link!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12

          • Stefan, you pitiful pile of guano, I'm not wasting my time. I'm increasing your stress load and shortening your life, am I not?

            It's just that if there's payment to be gotten as a "troll for the fossil fuels industry" in carrying out the objective of debunking the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fraud, I certainly don't want to let the opportunity pass.

            I've got grandkids, and there's no end of nice stuff I can buy for them with that money.

            I'm thinking of it as a "two-fer." Driving you even deeper into the gibbering psychosis you're demonstrating, and collecting cash for it in the bargain.

            So you got that billing information for me, or are you (in the words of the Reverend Johnson) "just jerking off?"

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9

          • Stefan C. Kosikowski

            The good doctor (LOL) says, "...you pitiful pile of guano, I’m not wasting my time. I’m increasing your stress load and shortening your life, am I not?"

            Wow, that's pretty funny. Seems you are living up to your hypocrite oath!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 11

          • Stefan? You haven't yet given me the contact information by way of which I can invoice "the fossil fuels industry" for the work you say I'm doing as a "paid troll."

            How can I be a "paid troll" if I'm not getting paid?

            Ah, I get it. In the *Blazing Saddles* words of the Reverend Johnson, Stefan is "just jerking off".

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6

          • Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Tucci writes; "How can I be a “paid troll” if I’m not getting paid? "

            You're right sir!

            Here I thought you were intelligent, as anyone working as hard as you do here would surely demand payment for all this labor... when I should have realized there is another possibility... you are just dumb and working for no monetary compensation.

            My Bad.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9

      • My thoughts exactly.

        Tucci does not sound like the kind of doctor I would want to visit: he does not listen, is disrespectful, and most importantly, has high opinions of his own intelligence, therefore belittles any opinions and (and more importantly) research that does not support his idealogy. Very dangerous traits in a doctor.

        I also do wonder why he is using a pseudonym rather than coming out with his real name.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12

        • Stefan C. Kosikowski

          Look closer at many of his posts... the spelling of some of the words are the English version, not the American version!

          FavoUrite, not favorite... for example. There are more examples too. Maybe he is not even an American, or maybe he is not paying close attention to detail (again) during his cut and paste sessions?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10

          • Stefan, haven't you noticed that when I've used British spelling ("Standard English," I think they call it) in any of my posts, it's only when I'm QUOTING somebody else?

            I've had to co-author papers with people from the Commonwealth countries, and there's a perpetual struggle to keep them from putting their adventitious "u" into every other bloody word when the manuscript is being prepared for submission to *The New England Journal of Medicine* and NOT *The Lancet*.

            Pain in the tochus, damnit....

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6

        • Philip baselessly complains: "Tucci does not sound like the kind of doctor I would want to visit: he does not listen, is disrespectful, and most importantly, has high opinions of his own intelligence, therefore belittles any opinions and (and more importantly) research that does not support his idealogy. Very dangerous traits in a doctor."

          On the contrary, you pitiful jerk. The kind of medico you do NOT want managing your care is the sort of "go along to get along" weakling who lacks the grounding in both methodology and fund of knowledge to strengthen his decision-making capabilities.

          We call 'em - not all that jokingly - "Double-Oh-Seven Docs." You know; "licensed to kill."

          Were you my patient, Philip, I'd be dealing with you as tenderly as your stupidity dictates. Your behavior in this forum demonstrates that you're not the kind of person who deals at all well with reality, and so the canons of the profession tend reliably to guide the treating physician toward the "butter-'em-up" approach.

          But you're not my patient, Philip. Instead, we're encountering each other in an online forum where your advocacy constitutes a THREAT to my patients and to public health in general. I'm not only free to bash the living daylights out of you but the canons of the profession effectively require it of me.

          As for why I'm using an ekename, why are you not using YOUR last name and full "in real life" information?

          First and foremost, it's irrelevant. "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."*

          All we have of each other, Philip, is what comes through these "Comment" boxes, and that's just fine. Assertions must be acceptable on the basis of their intrinsic validity (and disputants can, when necessary, request support for those assertions with which they take issue).

          Either you make your point or you don't, and your identity really doesn't matter. Isn't that nice?

          Second, it is "wisest, safest and best" to reduce the ability of malignant sons-of-indeterminate-parentage to do you material damage "in real life."

          This is how I've instructed my grandchildren to behave when they're online, keeping their exposure to predators at minimum. You expect me to behave any less consequently?

          When someone in a forum of dispute like this one demands of you your IRL information, ceteris paribus, he is an unscrupulous bastid planning to harm you. Do not oblige him.

          If you're at all capable of learning anything, Philip, learn that. And don't expose yourself to consideration as a similarly unscrupulous and malignant bastid by expecting anybody else to render themselves vulnerable to IRL attack.

          ===
          * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog.jpg

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6

  3. The denialists from the Congressional hearing had a chance to offer evidence that there is a conspiracy among government scientists and instead offered a plagierized paper that they had to retract and the expert on the statistical method they used said it was done wrong. That's the best they can do?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 24

    • Oh, good heavens. You think that ANYBODY with any bias toward honest scientific investigation reposes any trust in the Red wing of the big, permanently incumbent Boot-On-Your-Neck Party?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 21

  4. Calling people names doesn't help your argument Tucci78. It just makes you look overly biased and willing to overlook any evidence that doesn't support your point of view. Also, you haven't recently cited sources for your key arguments.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 21

    • Yeah, but calling YOU names, putzi, makes me feel all warm and fulfilled.

      It's also proving to be diagnostically accurate.

      Sure I'm biased. I'm biased in favor of factual reality, where your allegedly "scientific" contentions in support of the AGW fraud find no supporting evidence whatsoever. I'm biased in favor of lucid reasoned argument - of which you've shown precisely zip in this forum - and I'm biased in favor of government under the rule of law, fulfilling its duty to protect the individual rights of real human beings within its jurisdiction, which policies based upon the AGW bogosity would violate to no material purpose whatsoever.

      I mean, apart from enriching fraudsters, thieves, and power-lusting violent aggressors intent upon running innocent victims' lives.

      What's your bias, Evi?

      What's got you in here stinkin' up the joint?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 22

  5. "For increases in solar radiation, we would expect to see warming of the stratosphere rather than the observed cooling trend.

    Similarly, greater global warming at night and during winter is more typical of increased greenhouse gases, rather than an increase in solar radiation."

    http://theconversation.edu.au/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why-1515

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 21

    • Nope. The stratosphere radiates absorbed solar heat (infrared frequencies) directly to space, maintaining what I'm tempted to call "homeostasis" without much modifying effect by way of the interaction between solar wind and cosmic rays.

      It's in the troposphere that any greenhouse gas effect takes place, and it's also in the troposphere that negative feedback mechanisms (cloud formation, heat transfer by convection and evaporation, etc.) result in the transfer of absorbed heat energy back out into space.

      The Earth is not a closed system. This is something that Hansen et al missed in 1976 when they made the founding mistake of the AGW bogosity.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 21

      • Cite your sources please.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 19

        • Oh, you want ME to cite sources supporting an assertion that the Earth is not a closed system?

          Not that I haven't done so. See previous posts of mine on this thread.

          Jeez, I've gotta hold this ignoramus' hand now? What next? He's gonna want a citation supporting the definition of "convection"?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 21

  6. While I love some things about R Paul, his denial of Global Warming smacks of wacko-ism. Scientists in the government, out of the government, from all countries, etc. all agree that we humans are producing very foul climate effects and we need to work on it. I want to support him but can't support somone who doesn't recognize the obvious.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 20

    • "Scientists" defending their government grant funding - their "rice bowls" in the parlance of the military - are hardly dispassionate advocates of anything except sustained and increased political influence and taxpayer money to advance their academic careers.

      If you can't perceive the plain facts of the matter - that the extraordinary contention of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) priesthood to the effect that trace man-made increases in a trace gas has been driving (or could ever drive) sufficient heat trapping to cause any adverse consequences requires extraordinary and consistent evidence to be accepted - then you're pretty much completely hopeless.

      The proof - the hard, verifiable, objective evidence - required to support the AGW contention has never been produced, and there is absolutely no prospect that the alarmist "scientists" will ever manage to fulfill that obligation.

      A conjecture which does not correlate with objective fact - and the AGW contention does not - is not even describable as a "hypothesis" much less the sort of "sure thing" upon which enormously costly public policy measures are sought by the warmistas.

      Would you ask Dr. Paul to advocate the slaughter of every other redheaded person in America if some solemn convocation of self-proclaimed and insular "authorities" claimed it was vitally necessary to prevent a giant asteroid from crashing down on the planet?

      Well, don't expect him to look at this preposterous and absolutely unproven AGW bilge - and the prospect of crashing the American economy into ruins - with any less skeptical regard.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 22

      • It's YOU making a personal attack on them.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 20

        • What "personal attack," putzi? The AGW bogosity "showed [them] the way to promotion an' pay," and their motives for the behavior they've demonstrated - fiercely defending their rice bowl - are perfectly reasonable subjects for discussion.

          FOUR BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR in government funding in these United States alone, $79 billion total in the twenty years between 1989 an 2009.

          That's a lotta incentive for these "scientists" to hew to the AGW party line, no?

          You might be better served, kiddo, by asking what incentives drive the skeptical scientists - a lot of them retired physicists and engineers and climatologists and meteorologists - who make nothing at all from any source by speaking out against this ginormous fraud, doing it not only at their own expense but without the extremely costly resources (paid for out of those taxpayer-funded "research" grants and the budgets of government agencies) available to los warmistas of the AGW High Priesthood.

          Oh, yeah. Lest we lose focus, where's the PROOF required to support the AGW conjecture, anyway? Doesn't seem to be any causal relationship between steadily increasing levels of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) and global temperaturs since 1998, because those temperatures have either flattened out or decreased.

          Interestingly, those trends have been reported by satellite-based instrumental analysis systems and oceanographic temperature measurement methods employing gadgetry like the Argo array.

          Ah, if only the global legacy land and ocean surface temperature data (collection and "enhancement") were still confined to those closely held fiefdoms dominated by the "climatology" caliphate that got exposed in the Climategate archive.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 22

          • You are attacking all of the scientists who study climate science except the ones who support your point of view in one personal attack? That is a really cheap argument.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 20

          • And the cheapness of your arguments is shown by all your name calling of people who don't support your point of view as if just because they make conclusions you don't like, you are free to assume and demonize what you imagine as their political orientation.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 20

          • Tsk. The "name-calling" is nothing more than lagniappe. It's just getting to you, putzi.

            I'm not "attacking all of the scientists who study climate science." Just the crooks and liars. Dr. Judith Curry (as one example) is a warmista I respect and admire. My disagreements with her are without rancor, much as are my disagreements with Dr. Paul regarding the voluntary termination of pregnancy.

            But you, Evi, are in this forum for no purpose other than to push the greatest single fraud ever to degrade the seeming of science, and that's a hateful objective.

            You're surprised at being hated?

            Sheesh. Get used to it.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 22

          • Wow. $4 billion a year? How about the $40 billion in taxpayer funds a year that goes to the oil and gas companies? How about the $8 billion a year that goes to coal? The $9 billion that goes to nuclear?

            Oh, but of course that is a fallacy! Faulting climate science for the $4 billion a year it receives from the government isn't a fallacy because Tucci, the omniscient one, says it 'aint.

            Tucci, your argument is D.O.A.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 20

          • What, Cameron? You don't like the "$40 billion in taxpayer funds a year that goes to the oil and gas companies" and the "$8 billion a year that goes to coal" and the "$9 billion that goes to nuclear," then?

            What the heck makes you think that I do? Or - by extension - that Dr. Paul does? This corporate welfare (Frank Chodorov called it "Rotarian socialism" back in 1953) has been a cornerstone of the mercantilist undeniable corruption of the Republican Party ever since they were calling themselves "Whigs," and it's not to be countenanced by honest Americans.

            Heck, why do you think that the Republican Party leadership has been trying to get rid of Dr. Ron Paul for the past several decades? He threatens many of THEIR most precious rice bowls, too.

            You want to dump those subsidies and set-asides and sweetheart deals and quotas and and protective tariffs and competition-stifling regulations, Cameron?

            Hey, welcome to the TEA Party. You're halfway there.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 23

      • You didn't prove anything. Over time all the denialist claims were rejected because the scientific evidence didn't support alternative explanations like solar radiation. The warming continued even after solar radiation declined. That is a scientific fact.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 20

        • What do I have to prove? The burden of proof, Evi, is on the AGW fraudsters. As I've written, they've advanced a hellacious proposition - that anthropogenic increases in a teensy trace atmospheric gas can cause "catastrophic" global warming.

          Not that some global warming wouldn't be a really, really good thing. "Hockey Stick" graph fraudulence notwithstanding, both the Medieval Warm and Roman Warm climate optima demonstrated that global warming far, FAR less than anything even the AGW conjecture "predicts" produces an improved condition for the human race, increasing agricultural yields, reducing contagious disease susceptibilities, and generally tending to improve material wealth and individual survival.

          Kinda why Mann et al. blotted the Medieval Warm period out of his 1998 paper.

          I only have to utter those assertions to the effect that the "climatology" caliphate have failed (and are continuing to fail) in their duty to support their preposterous bogosity.

          I've been doing that, and it's really, really getting down your shirt, isn't it?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 24

          • Whoops!

            "“Hockey Stick” graph fraudulence notwithstanding, both the Medieval Warm and Roman Warm climate optima demonstrated that global warming far, far GREATER than anything even the AGW conjecture “predicts” produces an improved condition for the human race, increasing agricultural yields, reducing contagious disease susceptibilities, and generally tending to improve material wealth and individual survival.

            There. All fixed.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 24

          • Except Mann's conclusions weren't proven false and Wegman got caught plagierizing and had to retract a paper.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 20

          • And you didn't cite any source for your claims, yet again.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 19

          • Anent Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph falsehoods (including a climate modeling system that reproduces that "hockey stick" graph if random Brownian numbers - "red noise" - is fed into the program), see "Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series", Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Energy & Environment, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003.

            Putzi, you're so tightly fixated on Wegman that you've lost focus on the "M&M" who so terrified the C.R.U. e-mail correspondents who got caught in Climategate.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 23

  7. These are non-government affiliated organizations and they aren't the dishonest nonscientist denialists that you cited.

    Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

    "Scientific Societies

    Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

    "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009)

    American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

    "Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change." (February 2007)

    American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

    "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)

    American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

    "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

    American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

    "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)

    Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change

    "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)

    American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change

    "There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)"

    http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 20

    • Yep, and their members are clutching at their rice bowls, most of 'em filled by politicians and bureaucrats dipping into taxpayers' pockets to do it.

      Remarkable what FOUR BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR in government "research" grants - not to mention all that "carbon credit" trading crap and "green industry" subsidization can buy, isn't it?

      What's that bit from *All The President's Men* now? Oh, yeah.

      "Follow the money."

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 22

  8. I did cite evidence and you mischaracterized my point.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 17

  9. And he ignores the fact that Lawrence Solomon was dishonest from the get go and didn't provide any counter evidence to show he was honest when presenting the scientist's position. It's just like how denialists cite discredited research in a Congressional hearing as if it is fact and then even act like after the paper is retracted it is still fact.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 19

    • The source I gave quoted Solomon himself that none of the scientists Solomon cited denied global warming or climate change. And yet he claims that they are denialists. That's what you are ignoring.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 18

      • Nah. It's simply not relevant. I quoted the section of Mr. Solomon's article containing the information I sought, and....

        Well, putzi, you STILL haven't addressed that information, or contended in any way that it was inaccurate.

        Jeez, you are the complete weasel, ain'tcha?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 22

  10. Even denialist scientists are dishonest.

    "Unfortunately, Deep Climate’s accusations were true. Wegman’s Report to Congress in 2006 was a sloppy piece of work produced to meet the political needs of the denialist Republican Congressman Joe Barton. Although widely rebutted, denialists held the Report up as evidence of both faulty statistical underpinnings for Dr. Mann’s so-called global temperature “hockey-stick” and of corruption in the scientific publication process. That Report['s" social network" accusations were] hastily reworked as Said, Wegman, et. al. (2008) in the un-related journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis which has now, to their undoubted reluctant embarrassment, retracted it."

    http://wottsupwiththat.com/2011/05/16/wegman-paper-retraction-by-journal/

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 19

    • So? Does a retraction by one person do ANYTHING to provide objective proof of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) contention?

      Nope.

      Lying to yourself and everybody else, Evi, you keep shying away from the fact that no matter how faulty any individual contrarian examination of the preposterous AGW bogosity might prove to be, the burden of proof is still entirely upon those advancing the bullpuckey contention about this unbelievable and more and more evidently impossible effect of aCO2 you're trying so flop-sweatingly to peddle.

      You wanna quit now and scuttle back into your hole before somebody gets out the insecticide and doses you properly?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 22

  11. Again, you failed to provide any counter evidence for the evidence of dishonest reporting by non-scientists, as I have shown, who have misrepresented the scientific data and the scientists.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 19

    • Flop-sweatily, Evi demands that readers here "blank out" all the evidence (verified and presumptive) of concerted dishonesty on the part of the climatology caliphate and focus instead upon the errors and "dishonest reporting" of people who have no pecuniary interest in those FOUR BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR of government "research" grants to advance the AGW fraud, or in the even greater plunder to be gotten by promoting government-subsidized "green industry" and those wonderful government-required "carbon credits."

      The remarkable thing about these "non-scientists" opposing the ordained and anointed members of the caliphate (and the banksters, politicians, bureaucrats, and business critters making their killings building bird-manglers and solar panels) is that most of 'em aren't getting paid much for doing it. Heck, most of 'em are entirely unpaid. No resources, no rice bowls, just a determination to put an end to the single greatest fraud in the history of science, and the single greatest campaign of political plunder since the Mongol Conquest.

      Anybody expect this "Evi" putz to show any sort of demonstration explicitly detailing how any of the sources I've cited, in support of specific points of information, have "misrepresented the scientific data and the scientists"?

      No? Then you, reader, are a helluva lot smarter than this "Evi" putz.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 21

  12. I find it interesting that you use personal attacks on the scientists often before you even look at the scientific data that they published in peer reviewed journals.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 18

    • Oh, heck, I want a LOT more than "personal attacks" on these charlatans. I want criminal prosecutions, and space made for them in Alkatraz.

      Time that facility was put to use as more than just a tourist attraction.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 20

  13. Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,000 years
    Sea levels are rising faster than at any point in the past 2,000 years because of the impact of global warming, scientists have found.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8586961/Sea-levels-rising-at-fastest-rate-in-2000-years.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 18

    • The name of the paper* discussed in the referenced news article is Kemp et alia, "Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia." Fossil foraminifera and plant microfossils were employed as sea level proxies. In the paper's conclusion we read:

      "According to our analysis, North Carolina sea level was stable from BC 100 to AD 950. Sea level rose at a rate of 0.6 mm/y from about AD 950 to 1400 as a consequence of Medieval warmth, although there is a difference in timing when compared to other proxy sea-level records. North Carolina and other records show sea level was stable from AD 1400 until the end of the 19th century due to cooler temperatures associated with the Little Ice Age. A second increase in the rate of sea-level rise occurred around AD 1880–1920; in North Carolina the mean rate of rise was 2.1 mm/y in response to 20th century warming."

      Of course, the acceleration in sea level rise began to occur between 1865 and 1892, BEFORE the start of the 20th Century. During that 27-year interval, it increased from a rate of less than 0.1 mm/year to 2.1 mm/year. This means that the acceleration in sea level rise estimated by the methods used in this study had started LONG before atmospheric carbon dioxide levels climbed much above 300 ppm by volume, and anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) was very much a minor component of that content.

      There's also the fact - read the paper - that the investigators (including "Hockey Stick" Michael Mann) did not consider recent data collected or proxy recreation of recent sea levels, emphatically NOT looking at the past decade.

      During that decade, of course, the Earth's temperatures have been LOWER than "predicted" by the baseless AGW assumptions built into the alarmist charlatans' global climate models.

      Cherry-picking as usual.

      Despite yet another dollop of "We're All Gonna Die!" fraudster pseudoscience, reliable instrumental data - by way of Envisat satellite observations** in particular - demonstrate that there has been essentially no sea level rise for the last seven years.

      There was noise like this last August,*** this time about South Pacific sea levels, and it turned out to be similarly useless in supporting the "CO2-is-Evil!" man-made climate change bogosity. Since 2000, global positioning satellite information has resulted in increased accuracy in the siting of SEAFRAME gauges on the South Pacific islands where the "catastrophic" ocean rises were supposedly occurring, and this - in part at the very least, it seems - has resulted in evidence demonstrating little (if any) sea level change around any of the twelve islands under scrutiny.****

      AGW alarmist bogosity busted yet again.

      ===
      * http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/pnas_kemp-etal_2011_sea_level_rise.pdf

      ** http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/hiding-the-decline-in-sea-level/#more-32692

      *** http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/10-of-sea-level-rise-is-due-to-land-rising-too-got-that/

      **** http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/southpacific.pdf

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 21

  14. Sea Level is Rising Faster Than Ever Seen
    Jennifer Welsh, LiveScience Staff WriterDate: 20 June 2011 Time: 05:47 PM ET

    http://www.livescience.com/14688-sea-level-rising-faster.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 19

  15. "SOLAR ACTIVITY AND GLOBAL WARMING
    The article by Lawrence Solomon, which portrays me as a denier of global warming, is a slanderous fabrication. I have always maintained that the current episode of warming that we are experiencing is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and that global temperatures will rise much further unless steps are taken to halt the burning of fossil fuel. Compared to these effects, the influence of variations in solar magnetic activity is unimportant, however interesting it may be to astrophysicists like me.
    For further details see the Press Release on the University of Cambridge website
    Nigel Weiss"

    http://www.desmogblog.com/national-post-ducks-correction-repeats-slander

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 18

    • Oh? A reporter mistakes warmista Nigel Weiss for an honest skeptic, and the guy gets all shirty about it.

      Tsk. Pay a charlatan an undeserved compliment and see what it gets you....

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 20

  16. 'The problem, then and still, is that nobody in Solomon's overheated text actually denies that humans are causing climate change."

    http://www.desmogblog.com/lawrence-solomons-deniers-carefully-calculated-lie-still-lie

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 18

    • Are Lawrence Solomon's QUOTED assertions in his article ("Numbers racket” (7 November 2009)* factual or are they not?

      You're evading the point, putzi.

      In his article, he quotes warmistas supporting the great preposterous AGW bogosity. Expecting them to express honest skepticism instead of expressing faith in the spurious validity of their meal ticket is rather too much like expecting officers of the Federal Reserve System to campaign for the restoration of specie (gold and silver coin) instead of the continued issue of fiat currency.

      ===
      * http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/07/lawrence-solomon-numbers-racket.aspx

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 20

  17. He isn't very honest either.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lawrence_Solomon

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 18

  18. Almost all of these are professional associations, not government affiliated.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 20

    • See above. The members of those "professional organizations" are overwhelmingly dependent - both directly and indirectly - on government funding allocated by politicians with a POWERFUL desire to "keep up the skeer" among the constituencies their gulling, cullying, and diddling.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 20

  19. Anthony Watts is hardly an expert on climate science. He didn't even get a college degree.

    "Credentials held
    Watts held an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[7] with a status of "retired".[8]
    Credentials not held
    Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[9], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[10], and Watts posesses neither certification.[11],[12]"

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts#Background_and_education

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 16

    • Ah, now we have "argumentum ad hominem" in its precise definition.

      Writes "Evidence?":

      "Anthony Watts is hardly an expert on climate science. He didn’t even get a college degree."

      You lose, putzi. Attacking the person to whom a statement is attributed is the evasion of the honest disputant's responsibility to address the contention itself.

      You're another one of those gormless lefties who never did debate in high school (much less college), ain'tcha? Never legitimately passed a course in either Logic or Rhetoric, either.

      While formal certification can serve as presumptive - perhaps the better word is "circumstantial" - support for reliability, it cannot be definitive proof of reliability, capability, or even trustworthiness. Reciprocally, LACK of certification says nothing whatsoever about such a person's ability to observe, evaluate, interpret, and arrive at valid conclusions about the phenomenal universe.

      The admitted "Liberal" fascisti running SourceWatch are creatures of the similarly politically prejudiced milk-and-water socialist Center for Media and Democracy, and that organization is also funded by people and corporate entities intent upon selling the AGW fraud (see http://www.prwatch.org/finances.html). That says nothing about the quality of their assessments, but worlds about their motivations.

      Interestingly, though, the only remotely adverse thing they post online about Mr. Watts is that he doesn't have a college degree.

      Well, heck. Neither did Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, Andre Carnegie, H.L. Mencken, Nikola Tesla, or H. Allen Smith.

      Theodore Kaczynski, on the other hand, does.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 20

      • The experts study for several years to obtain PhD's in an interdisciplinary field and submit their research in peer reviewed journals so that the educated people can look at the data before their studies are published to the general public. This is done so that their studies aren't misinterpreted by people outside their field as Lawrence Solomon has done.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 19

        • Yeah, and the running joke I remember as an undergraduate was that "PhD" stands for "Piled higher & Deeper."

          Heard it in medical school, too, come to think of it.

          There is in Evi's worshipful exaltation of the PhD types nothing more or less than the stench of authoritarianism, of reliance on the output of the anointed for no other reason than the fact that they've run the gymkhana required to get themselves certified as "experts."

          Forget whether or not these "experts" are actually doing anything valid or honest or even remotely congruent with factual reality. They're the ones "educated people" look up to.

          Gawd. It's time to repeat that quote from Nobel laureate (Physics) Richard Feynman again:

          "Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

          Consider that last phrase graven in letters of fire.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 20

      • Stefan C. Kosikowski

        Tucci states:

        "You lose, putzi. Attacking the person to whom a statement is attributed is the evasion of the honest disputant’s responsibility to address the contention itself. "

        Pot, kettle, black... thanks for playing!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 15

        • Nope. Stefan, you cement-headedly fail to support your assertions. To the extent that you and your co-religionist warmista fellow have advanced anything even risibly to be considered a "contention," I've addressed it, debunked it, and otherwise given the honest reader here more than adequate indication that the preposterous bogosity of the AGW conjecture is a blunder that has long since become a flagrant fraud.

          Yet again, Stefan, you fail. Er, you haven't yet gotten tired of screwing the pooch like this, have you? Were it not for incompetent boobs like you, the defenestration of this gaudy hoax would be less pleasurable by far.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 16

          • Stefan C. Kosikowski

            More personal attacks... I guess it's safe to claim victory, for there is nothing honest about you.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 13

          • Aw, you've given up, Stefan?

            Go ahead and "claim" anything you like. You're dedicated to pushing the single greatest fraud in the history of civilization (the divine right of kings has now, in my opinion, been superseded), which means that you're committed to lying without hesitation, shame, or qualm of conscience.

            What's one more lie to you?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 16

  20. That's not a very good way of arguing. Just because scientists were hired by governments doesn't mean all their scientific data and the conclusions they drew were immediately wrong.

    The warming is occurring even though solar radiation is in decline. That is a product of heat trapping gasses.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 16

    • Ah, yes. Government employees are more reliable than those of us participating in the productive sector of the polity, and upon whom they depend for funding. Gotta explain how you get to that conclusion sometime, don'tcha?

      As for this "The warming is occurring even though solar radiation is in decline. That is a product of heat trapping gasses" unsupported assertion, you got a citation or two - something from ARGO or CERES or ERBE data - to back that up, putzi?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 22

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


1 + six =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>