1 Hollywood made a movie using that VERY SAID SAME phrase, to describe the loss of the draft!!!  "The Big Chill" was about drugged up gay, impotent hippy's dealing with the world that surrounded them.

2

I'm cold!

No, wait.  I'm hot!

No, wait.......

 

3 Final paragraph of the 1975 Newsweek story:

"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Full story here
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

4 My entire life has been one doomday prediction after another. I finally quit giving a shit, which was a good move because eventually, everyone forgets about it and moves on to a new junk science fad.

5

Extreme mortman is also someone's online campaign organizer.

During the campaign that should always be included, I'm just saying.

6

"auto-da-fé"

Now we know what to call Ace's disease.

7

moves on to a new junk science fad

Wait a minute... you're saying swine flu, the population bomb, mass famines, and no more trees were fads?

What am I going to do with all the t-shirts I bought?

8

I'm cold!

No, wait.  I'm hot!

No, wait.......

So it's official.  Newsweek is a girl.  *goes for sweater since it's now a chilly 72*

9 So, uh, are the good looking chicks still going to be protesting?
I'm doing, uh, research, uh, about that sort of, uh, stuff.

Alex, I'm free to cuddle if you're cold. Just sayin'.

10

Alex, I'm free to cuddle if you're cold

When did this place turn into an AOL chat room?

11 The planet has a fever.

12 So does Nom de Blog.

13 You guys should check out all the whining that is going on at the RealClimate.org website.  This is the site that "real" climatogist's from NASA hang out.  You know the alarmist crowd.

Especially look at the comments page from their most recent posting of the McIntyre "smoking gun".  Their attitude is, oh well as soon as we found out we took care of the error - move on, nothing to see here. 

http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=465

In particular, look at the skeptic comments and then the subsequent shut down from the alarmists.  There is a complete absence of debate.  The attitude of NASA is if you disagree with us, you are not worthy to debate us.  You know way back in junior high, it was pounded into me the scientific process.  You have labs, where notes get shared where you try to reproduce the results from your data.  Not so at the NASA - even though the party line is that we gave you the data.  But when you drill down - oh you wanted the script to compile that Fortran90 program - you can't have that. 

14

 So, uh, are the good looking chicks still going to be protesting?

Have they EVER?

It's always the fat smarmy chicks that lead the way with this shit.  Just check the nake rid, or the "breats not bombs" thing at zombies place.

Trust me, Hot chicks tend to hold their shit back until the successful capitalist opens his walet.

The only "hot chicks" who are flashy whores are heiresses who need publicity and bank do, done been, will bee nothing pieces of shit like Solomon.

15 Yet Meacham, quoting none of this, simply brushes aside the 1975 report as "alarmist" and "discredited." Today, he assures his readers, Newsweek's climate-change anxieties rest "on the safest of scientific ground."

I say we dust off and nuke the whole place from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

16 Do you know what really contributes to global warming? Jon Meacham's nose. Have you seen the size of that honker??

17 I resent that.

18 Paulitics,
Stop harshing my mellow.

19 You can't let the scientific process get in the way of career advancement and a general feeling of saving the world from the clutches of ExxonMobil.

These are very important people and we just need to let them be and do what they say without questioning any of it.

20

Leonardo Decaprio is a scientific genius.

 

21 If we had been nicer to Pluto last year, none of this Global Warming stuff would have started.

22 *goes for sweater since it's now a chilly 72*

What is that with you girls, alex? If I don't pay attention, my wife turns up the A/C until our house is a degree or two warmer than a Bangkok brothel.  75 degrees is not cold, ladies, cowboy up just a little.

What galls me the most about GW is that so many otherwise intelligent people have decreed that there is no more debate; that being skeptical about shoddy science is akin to saying the Earth is flat.

23

Can anyone identify the hormone that causes my wife to insist on turning down the thermostat while continuing to complain of being too cold and sticking her icy feet on my legs as I'm trying to sleep?

Thanks in advance.

 

24

Paulitics,
Stop harshing my mellow.

Mellow?  Dude, sounds like you're a little ... anxious.  Not to mention desperate.

25 Forgot to change back to my magic name.

26
Nom de Blog - I will keep that in mind. 

What is that with you girls, alex? If I don't pay attention, my wife turns up the A/C until our house is a degree or two warmer than a Bangkok brothel.  75 degrees is not cold, ladies, cowboy up just a little.

It part of the glorious mystery that is Woman.  Actually, I prefer to layer up on the clothes rather than turn up the hear/turn off the a/c.  I mean, if I get hot, I can peel down the layers. 

Can anyone identify the hormone that causes my wife to insist on turning down the thermostat while continuing to complain of being too cold and sticking her icy feet on my legs as I'm trying to sleep?

Thanks in advance.

Yes.  It's called estrogen.  Though the icy feet thing is really just to hear the yelping.  Or maybe that's just me. 

27 Has Laura published a list of sorta-kinda-committed-to-attend attendees to Acepalooza?

28 Oy vey. OK, first off, Newsweek isn't even a pop science magazine - it's a weekly general-news magazine. If you look at the actual scientific literature at that time, (my understanding is) you'll find that there was some concern over the possibility of global cooling (and in fact, there was a brief mid-century cool patch), as well as about global warming, and a whole lot of uncertainty. Newsweek and some other popular outlets took global cooling and (very briefly) ran with it, dropping all the caveats, uncertainty, etc., and generally warping stuff in a genuinely alarmist way. Meanwhile climate scientists did, well, climate science - with the help of ever-more-powerful computers, many new discoveries, and three more decades of research - a rather impressive amount of progress, and - what happened? Well, global cooling pretty much totally dropped out as a concern within a few years - the science didn't support it. Global warming emerged as the far more serious problem. Unlike global cooling, it didn't rapidly melt away, instead it faced numerous scientific challenges and emerged stronger each time. The pattern we see with global warming isn't of a tentative hypothesis being examined, being blown out of proportion in the popular press, and rapidly fading away in the face of research. Instead, there's been more and more support, until virtually the entire world community of climate scientists think anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is a very real and serious issue.

Now, just because the overwhelmingly vast majority of experts in the field think A certainly doesn't *prove* that A is right - science isn't some magic source of instant revelation, but a human enterprise, and hence imperfect: one should never check one's brain at the door. But . . .

Well, look at it this way. Let's say someone goes to the hospital complaining about certain worrying symptoms. You're examined by 100 doctors (no, I dunno why, just go with it). The first fre days in the hospital there's a lot of uncertainty: it's a House-style really complicated case, and some of the doctors think A, some think B, some C, or D, or even that it's not a major problem, or all in your head, or whatever. But by the end of the week, as they do more tests and consult and consider, B gets discarded - the tests and such didn't support it. And over the course of a month - lots more tests and such like - more and more of the doctors come over to supporting the diagnosis of A, rather then the other possibilities. Finally, 98 of the doctors all say it's almost certainly A, a very serious condition, and while there might be no way to avoid some damage at this point, if you drastically reduce your consumption of (say) sugar (salt/fat/wheat/soy/blogs/whatver) and change your lifestyle, you can avoid the worst of it - about which they're not entirely certain, but their best estimates range from pretty bad to really bad. 2 of the doctors disagree. One has a good reputation, but is pretty much a professional contrarian. The other is getting substantial funds from companies selling sugar (or whatever), even as these companies start investing in alternate sweeteners. On the other hand, quite a few pundits and politicians - with little or no medical expertise - loudly insist that there's no way it could be A, or that maybe it is A, but it has nothing really to do with your diet and lifestyle, so you shouldn't change anything, or even if it does, changing them would just be too expensive, or hey, is A really that bad? Maybe it's a good thing! - Oh, and interestingly, all those pundits are only on one ideological side.

What would you do?

Now let's change that a little bit. Let's say 98 of the doctors say that while maybe some damage is inevitable, you need to change your diet and lifestyle, and quickly, your kids are going to face really serious problems - not fatal, but pretty bad to really bad, the best they can tell. (For example: 'stop smoking the crack, or you're going to have crack babies.')

What would you do?

This isn't some ideological game, or - as a few pundits and politicians have suggested - some giant hoax, or mad scheme to destroy capitalism, etc, etc. This is serious. Yes, it's not impossible that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, looking at the last 30+ years of research, are simply mistaken. There certainly have been cases where the well-established consensus in this or that field has turned out to be wrong. But really, to quote Clint Eastwood, "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?"

Well, do ya?

29

Yes, it's not impossible that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, looking at the last 30+ years of research, are simply mistaken.

It's not impossible.

It's also not true.

The vast majority of climate scientists looking at the last 30+ years of research do not agree on global warming.

That is a lie. You lie. Or you're severely mistaken. Either way - wrong.

Also, if you knew shit about shit, you'd realize even if it was true, it would mean the vast majority of scientists are negligent and possibly incompitent.

In terms of climate science, 30 years is piss in a bucket.

30 Dan S.,

I'm not sure when Clint Eastwood became the go-to guy on anthropogenic global warming. (I don't assume the readers of this site to be idiots -- morons, yes, but not idiots -- so I didn't choose to define a well-known term as did you, Dan S.)

Please do tell me how Mars is "suffering" from warming similar to Earth's but that Earth's is caused by men and Mars' is caused by -- hmm -- what exactly? (Irony quotes added free of charge.)

Then please tell me why the computer models are unable to go back to some period of time (when temperatures were known) and predict what we know to have happened since that point. Let's go with the period of 1900 until 2000.

And since you can't answer either of my queries, please stop pretending you know diddle-y shit about climate change.

31 That Newsweek cover was an embarrassment, and tonight I accidentally caught the NBC news. They were flogging the same "DENIER" theme.

MSNBC and Newsweek are all the same thing now I think.

32 Yeah, fuckit, guess I do. (Reaches for Luger, snuffs Callahan)

33

Also, Dan S.

Have you realize you never actually made an argument for global warming?

You made a couple of specious analogies based on a (false) assertion and then demagogically appealed to fear and uncertainty.

So...yeah.

Well you did.

Seriously...that's exactly (and all) that you just did.

34

Actually, I give Dan credit for presenting his argument in a reasoned, civil manner.  While I completely disagree with his logic, conclusions, and call to action, at least he's refreshing in his lack of argument-by-accusation / argument-by-epithet approach.

I don't know what others say, but I say, "Godspeed, Paul Vitti".

35 "In terms of climate science, 30 years is piss in a bucket."

Perhaps I was unclear. I'm not talking about the last 30 years of climate records - which indeed would be a very limited chunk o' data. I'm talking about the last 30 years of research: that is, everything climate scientists have done in the last 30 years, including utilizing (with - as they're the first to point out - some difficulties and uncertainties.
a) 15 decades of directly measuring temperature
b) 2000 years of data s derived from proxy sources - tree rings, ice cores, etc.
c) up to 800,000 years of data from really long term ice core records,
etc.

To put it another way:
at this point, based on their best interpretation of the data - reaching back, with increasing uncertainty, way, way back into the past - and drawing on the rapid growth of the field - including an intense focus on just this question - over the last few decades, the overwhelmingly vast majority of climate scientists think AGW is a very real and serious issue.

However, you're entirely right that I haven't made any specific argument for AGW. I have to get up in a few hours - and should go to bed first - so I'm sticking to the very simplest argument (and not engaging, for example, Nom's questions - except, if they could be so kind, to ask for a reference re: their point about computer models failing to (re)predict the last century).

One could point out that this is simply an argument from authority, and they'd be right. The thing is, that's not necessarily a horrible problem (at least as a very rough heuristic) - the worst is an argument from bad authority (ie: I'm an famous actor, therefore you should trust me on what toothpaste to buy/politician to vote for, etc.). So the issue here is why the overwhelming majority of climate scientists don't count as an appropriate authority - which doesn't, of course, *prove* that they're right, but does make it sound like a not unreasonable assumption..

To look at it another way: Imagine . . . if over the last few decades more and more climate scientists came to the conclusion that AGW almost certainly wasn't a real issue, until the overwhelming majority support this position, based on many multiple strands of evidence. Of the very, very small majority still pushing AGW, many (not all, but many) turn out to have connections with solar panel and windmill companies. However, left-wing pundits and politicians with no relevant expertise in climate science insist that this ever-stronger scientific agreement on AGW not being real is just a giant hoax, or a plot to destroy socialism, or to hurt the UN, or simply just nonsense, a lie, and what about Mars!! (what about Mars, folks in this scenario might ask, given that the specific claim being made is highly debated, appears to be a very, very minority position, and is at best very, very uncertain, based on extremely limited data, and contradicts pretty much everything else, including numerous confirmed predictions and observations, and arguably is best explained by reference to other factors - something to keep an eye on, esp. if research increasingly says something else - but so far it hasn't). Meanwhile, in this alternate world, economist's best-guess models -imperfect, but constantly refined and improved - all suggest pretty to very bad economic repercussions from switching to alternate-energy sources to avoid AGW - not the end of civilization, but some pretty crappy stuff, stretching far into the future. (Remember, in this scenario the vast majority of climate scientists say that AGW is almost certainly not real - and I should add, also the US is quite wind, water, and sun-poor, and would have to be dangerously dependent on other countries and regions - some not so friendly - for energy, all the while sitting on a vast and potentially inexhaustible supply of oil (if ironing out some kinks in delivery and fine-tunning the tech isn't beyond our abilities).

36 "t least he's refreshing in his lack of argument-by-accusation / argument-by-epithet approach.

Hey, thanks! Just don't see the point to that approach - it's unpleasant and useless . . .

37

Global warming emerged as the far more serious problem. Unlike global cooling, it didn't rapidly melt away, instead it faced numerous scientific challenges and emerged stronger each time. The pattern we see with global warming isn't of a tentative hypothesis being examined, being blown out of proportion in the popular press, and rapidly fading away in the face of research. Instead, there's been more and more support, until virtually the entire world community of climate scientists think anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is a very real and serious issue.

Uh huh.

That's why Mann's "hockey stick" graph, the foundational pillar of all of this pseudo-scientific horseshit which you've so credulously swallowed, has been demonstrated to be a naked, unequivocal fraud.  If you haven't heard about this, it's probably because the media is too busy sifting through the dumpsters of those shuckster deniers like lead climate scientists at MIT and George Mason.

That's why NASA's bullshit numbers citing 1998 as "the hottest year on record" were recently and unceremoniously "corrected" to note that 1934 is actually the holder of that title, and, in fact, seven of the ten hottest years in America (where temperature stations are routinely biased by the heat island effect and therefore useless, but, like everything else American, still more trustworthy than anything those damn Scandis are deploying) were in the 1930s and 1940s, when you'd rightly be dismissed as a drooling cretin for suggesting that mankind was warming the earth with all of his selfish exhaling.

That's why the laughably crude models on which these hack shaman hang their credentials can't even predict the past when fed known climate data.  But I'm sure they'll do much better in the future, right?  Just like Communism, where the future is always certain, but the past is always changing.

There is no "science" here.  There's nothing scientific about it.  There is no fealty to anything that could be called the scientific method without requiring a guilt-cleansing shower.  This is nothing more than faith-based hysteria, like all of the other faith-based hysterias that have preceded it.

Notice how the IPCC changed their so-dire-we-need-to-implement-global-wealth-distribution-now predictions for sea level rise (ignoring the fact that global warming could very well lower sea levels, but never-you-mind) over the next 50 years was cut in half over the course of a single year?  So, Dan, were they making unsupportable bullshit conclusions then, or are they making unsupportable bullshit conclusions now?  And, if it's the former, are you really so gullible as to put your faith in a "science" (represented by infinitely more bureaucrats, politicians, interest groups, and demagogues than actual, you know, scientists) whose long-range predictive conclusions can swing so wildly in such a short period of time?

38 Dan's medical analogy is actually pretty good-- if the year is 1807, and 98 out of 100 doctors agree that you need to be bled in order to purge the malignant humours.

39 I ran this global warming story by my staff and they all say that it smells like frying bacon.

It's definitely getting warmer if it smells like frying bacon.  You don't fry bacon with coldness, you know.

40 "That's why Mann's "hockey stick" graph, the foundational pillar of all of this pseudo-scientific horseshit "
Except - it wasn't and isn't.

"That's why NASA's bullshit numbers citing 1998 as "the hottest year on record" were recently and unceremoniously "corrected""

By - was it 0.02. of a degree?

"to note that 1934 is actually the holder of that title,

1934 is now the hottest year on record for the lower 48. Globally, - iirc - '2005 still wins - and the top next four hottest - globally - are within the last decade.

"That's why the laughably crude models on which these hack shaman hang their credentials can't even predict the past when fed known climate data. "

Nom de Blog mentions this too - can somebody give me a link?

Why am I still up? Anyway, fwiw, the May issue of New Scientist had a top 26 climate myths thingy, including

The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong>
> Mars and Pluto are warming too> (not necessarily a myth - just that it somehow disproves agw. )
>
"Notice how the IPCC . . . predictions for sea level rise . . . over the next 50 years was cut in half over the course of a single year? "

They were? Ok - reference? (And how could global warming very well lower sea level? That's what ice ages do, by locking up more water in glaciers. Global warming growing glaciers - that seems a far, far less likely result, even given that climate is a complex system - and I don't think any model predicts this.

41 "38 Dan's medical analogy is actually pretty good-- if the year is 1807, and 98 out of 100 doctors agree that you need to be bled in order to purge the malignant humours."

Well, then the questions are
a) do we have a pretty good reason to think that climate science in the early 21st century is basically in the same place as medical science - well, if one can call it that - in the early 19th century? - ie, not just imperfect and with a lot to learn, but close to completely useless (in the case of bleeding, based on never-tesed ideas dating back to Classical times).

and b) if we don't, right now, have a pretty good reason to think this, what would be the prudent - the conservative, even - thing to do?

It does help that a good bit of any presumable emissions-reducing solution ends up a plus for the US's national security, an' all - unless one likes a good bit of any possible foreign policy being held hostage by the frantic need for for foreign oil. If proposed solutions generally involved, say, mass genocide, it would be a different matter, but, well, no. It's sort of like: well, the overwhelming majority of engineers think that major bridge is structurally unsound and you need to build a new one. Now, it's going to be kinda expensive, and it's not utterly impossible that they're wrong (although there doesn't seem to be any good reason to think this, rather, quite the opposite), but
a) if they're right, you don't actually save (see recent horrible news - also, in this case, it's seems quite possible that the longer we wait, the harder it gets to fix (at best)).
and b) building the new bridge also means that you spend a lot less - perhaps ultimately no - time driving through some really bad neighborhoods, trying to dodge random gunfire and such, just to get over the river .

42 No, Dan S., the Mann hockey stick was rubbish.You can read the excellent summary here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

This Nature blog post by the climate scientists von Storch and Zorita is also interesting (and an independent recognition of the Mann hockey sticks shittyness): http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html

If NewScientist claims the Mann hockey stick is valid, that's because NewScientist is shit.

43

Poor Dan,

In denial.  Just can't accept that his cherised hockey stick is busted. 

Too bad, pal.  Find another doomsday scenario.  This one isn't working for your ilk anymore.

44

I think DanS. is asking us to sit down, relax, and carefully go over the assertions about GW so that we can come to the rational conclusion that it is now time to panic.

 GW would vanish in a puff of smoke if it had no potential to enrich greedy scientists, politicians, and other assorted bad actors. 

We should not make decisions as individuals or as a society on the basis of an hypothesis that can not pass even the simplest of scientific tests and scrutiny.

None of the physical and chemical events on the Earth run on concensus, they all operate on irrevocable, intractable, (and luckily for us, understandable)  rules and regulations.  We would be wise to remember that.

 

45

Paulitics, I will compile the list soon and publish. I'll have to break it down into three groups.

*People who say they're definitely coming (about 20 folks)

*People who say they're maybe coming

*People who talk a lot about it on the Acepalooza thread like it's gonna happen, but never actually said 'I'll be there.'

Hopefully we can move more people onto that first column.

46 The doctors of 200 years ago were actually very far from useless, but that didn't stop them from reaching consensus on the occasional misguided idea.  The Newsweek incident, and the strange impunity of Al Gore, show that they did have the advantage of our climate scientists in one important regard: they were not nearly as reticent when it came to denouncing quacks.  (I daresay it helps that the medical quacks were competing with the doctors for business, while our climate quacks are drumming up support for giving legitimate scientists more grants-- as well as supplying pretexts for statist policies which academics tend to favor anyway.  I must say that most of the suggestions I've heard are roughly analogous to closing all bridges until they can be replaced.)

Our long and arduous involvement in oil-free Afghanistan casts a certain amount of doubt on the notion that our foreign-policy difficulties owe much to oil, or that we could make the Middle East easier to manage by impoverishing it.

47

Dan S.

Thanks for not being all moonbattery with this debate. I agree that you're not going to get your point across by doing so.

Now on to the links. This one from Patrick Michaels,
Environmental Sciences Department University of Virginia

http://www.gcrio.org/USGCRP/sustain/michaels.html

"The most commonly cited of these models in the 1992 report, and remember, the 1992 report was specifically designed to back up the Rio treaty, was the model that came out of Princeton University, known as the GFDL model. To give you an idea of some of the resistance on this, the GFDL model run backwards on its own internal carbon dioxide concentration for the Northern Hemispheres shows a very large and growing disparity that began to develop about three decades ago. This is what is fueling some of the debate on this issue."

In your post #35 about 30 years of research:

a) 15 decades of directly measuring temperature 

How accurate are these temperature readings from, say, 125 years ago? If you believe that they are completely reliable to 0.01º f, or even 0.1º f, with all do respect, your fooling yourself. Even today, MANY ground stations do not comply with sensor placement guidelines. Like placed within 100 feet of pavement (some are in the MIDDLE of huge parking lots) and 10 feet in front of A/C exhaust.

b) 2000 years of data s derived from proxy sources - tree rings, ice cores, etc.

What tree rings can tell you, in general. i.e. a range. a to b:

Soil nutrients during growth.  Ground moisture. Temperature variation.

What tree rings can't tell you:

Average cloud cover. if the temperature went up or down. % of atmospheric water vapor (THE most abundant greenhouse gas)

c) up to 800,000 years of data from really long term ice core records,
etc.

Ah yes, ice cores. I'm assuming you mean the Antarctic ice. what is typically not told is that in that 800,000 years, the  temperature has been , roughly, 5ºc warmer and 10ºc cooler IN ANTARCTICA. Keep in mind that even though it's been 5ºc warmer, the Antarctic ice never melted.

Basically, ice cores can tell you the temperature of the region where the ice is being cored.

Here’s some light reading for you:

The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

An interesting, and I think, compelling take "consensus science"

Aliens Cause Global Warming

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

Michael Crichton speeches main page. If you have time to check others out
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/index.html

Kyoto? Here’s where Canada is at. (dec '05):
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2005/12/10/1347495.html

An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605&rfp=dta

The 60 scientists that signed are listed at the end of the open letter

Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml

Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Kyoto seen as a failure
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/11/18/afx2345473.html

Sun Energy Output At Over 1,000 Year Peak http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002242.html

 

 

48

Wow, BMan- thanks much for the cites.

From the open letter to Harper, here's a good quote:

"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future."

DanS? Believe this buttresses VJay's post #37 quite nicely.

And I still haven't seen your refutation of Mars' global warming figures.

One other thing- you are completely ignoring the algore algorithm, which is summed up thusly:

"The words, acts and deeds of Al Gore will always be directly and perfectly opposed to whatever issue, action, policy or thought that is logically morally and intellectually correct by a factor of 180 degrees on a 360 degree continuum."

Gore stated that history would declare Bill Clinton to be one of our greatest presidents roughly 45 minutes after same was impeached on I believe two articles of four. Gore tried to hold hearings/meetings about global warming in NYC and WDC when the weather was at record lows (NYC) or paralyzing the city with snowfall (WDC).  

There's your proof of the algore algorithm.

Call it a reverse argument to authority if it makes you feel better.

 

 

 

 

49

So like, who's making the "Team Denier" tshirts? How about "NOONE expects the GW inquisition!!" Or "Living in Denial, ain't it COOL?"

C'mon- their side gets to sell bogus carbon credits, it's time we made some cash off this nonsense.

50

A few more links for BMan..

http://www.stichting-han.nl/english/organisation.html

4,000 signatures including 72 nobel prize winners, in serious hard-science fields (not literature).

But don't let anyone tell you there's not a total concensus among all responsible scientists!

http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/statment.html

WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 27, 1992---As independent scientists, researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, being developed by environmental activist groups and certain political leaders. This so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.

Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.

A survey of U.S. atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880.

Furthermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models.

Finally, agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on world food supply.

We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor.

David G. Aubrey, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Nathaniel B. Guttman, Ph.D., Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center

Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D., Meteorologist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, M.l.T.

Robert C. Balling, Ph.D., Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University

Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Roger Pielke, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

Michael Garstang, Ph.D., Professor of Meteorology, University of Virginia

Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory

Lev S. Gandin, Ph.D., UCAR Scientist, National Meteorological Center

John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research Group, Forecast Systems Laboratory, NOAA

H. Jean Thiebaux, Ph.D., Research Scientist, National Meteorological Center, National Weather Service, NOM

Kenneth V. Beard, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Illinois

Paul W. Mielke, Jr., Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Statistics, Colorado State University

Thomas Lockhart, Meteorologist, Meteorological Standards Institute

Peter F. Giddings, Meteorologist, Weather Service Director

Hazen A. Bedke, Meteorologist, Former Regional Director, National Weather Service

Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D., Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University

Roy Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillett Weather Data Services

Terrance J. Clark, Meteorologist, U.S. Air Force

Neil L Frank, Ph.D., Meteorologist

Michael S. Uhart, Ph.D., Meteorologist, National Weather Service

Bruce A. Boe, Ph.D., Director, North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board

Andrew Detwiler, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, S. Dakota School of Mines & Technology

Robert M. Cunningham, Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society

Steven R. Hanna, Ph.D., Sigma Research Corporation

Elliot Abrams, Meteorologist, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, Inc.

William E. Reifenyder, Ph.D., Consulting Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus, Forest Meteorology, Yale University

David W. Reynolds, Research Meteorologist

Jerry A. Williams, Meteorologist, President, Oceanroutes, Inc.

Lee W. Eddington, Meteorologist, Geophysics Division, Pacific Missile Test Center

Werner A. Baum, Ph.D., former Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Florida State University

David P. Rogers, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Research Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Brian Fiedler, Ph.D., Asst. Professor of Meteorology, School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma

Edward A. Brandes, Meteorologist

Melvyn Shapiro, Chief of Meteorological Research, Wave Propagation Laboratory, NOM

Joseph Zabransky, Jr., Associate Professor of Meteorology, Plymouth State College

James A. Moore, Project Manager, Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Daniel J. McNaughton, ENSR Consulting and Engineering

Brian Sussman, Meteorologist

Robert D. Elliott, Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society

H. Read McGrath, Ph.D., Meteorologist

Earl G. Droessler, Ph.D., North Carolina State University

Robert E. Zabrecky, Meteorologist

William M. Porch, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Earle R. Williams, Ph.D, Assoc. Prof. of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia, President, Science & Environmental Policy Project

51

Fire and Ice - Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

The weather and the media - It's just another money earner, something to put on the front page

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

Thanks for the links Entropy. I didn't have them. 

Any time RojoLoco, here are  a couple more for you:

The IPCC’s infamous “hockey stick” graph debunked. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:T2r8uPjqeTIJ:www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf+McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

"With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

 

Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

Neptune's moon is getting warmer.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/120259.stm

 Pluto getting warmer: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

 Antarctic Sea Ice Increases over Past Two Decades http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antarctic_020822.html

 List of Expanding Glaciers: http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

 Australia discovers ocean current "missing link"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070815/sc_nm/australia_ocean_dc

The above is very interesting. Many climate models take into account the Great Ocean Conveyer, saying that a disruption may cause climate change and melting Arctic/Antarctic ice can disrupt it; causing amplification to climate change.

My question is: Doesn't the fact that we were completely missing a chunk of the Great Ocean Conveyer invalidate the models that have The Great Ocean Conveyer data as part of the model?

 

I'll close with a quote that I saved a while back. I can't attribute it to anyone, because i forgot to grab that info. Sorry to whoever stated this originally:

“Drought, floods, severe winters, warm winters, more frequent storm activity, less frequent storm activity, early frost, early thaw, receding glaciers. All have, to the best of my recollection as a news consumer, been cited by one climate research expert or another as evidence of "global warming". The same experts will also quickly caution that even in the midst of dramatic climate change, one should expect periods of "average" rainfall, temperature, storm activity.

With today's addition of expanding glaciers, the list is finally complete. It's therefore, official - climate change proponents have taken ownership of virtually every local and global weather phenomenon worthy of newspaper ink, including "average".

53

Oops, I forgot the very last line of the last quote in my previous post:

"One would think that more people would have noticed.”

54 Jeff Jacoby rocks!

55 Look, I'm telling you THE SKY IS FALLING!  Why do you deniers keep... well, denying?

56 Dan S. @ 35 above
"However, left-wing pundits and politicians with no relevant expertise in climate science insist that this ever-stronger scientific agreement on AGW not being real is just a giant hoax, or a plot to destroy socialism, or to hurt the UN, or simply just nonsense, a lie, and what about Mars!! (what about Mars, folks in this scenario might ask, given that the specific claim being made is highly debated, appears to be a very, very minority position, and is at best very, very uncertain, based on extremely limited data, and contradicts pretty much everything else, including numerous confirmed predictions and observations, and arguably is best explained by reference to other factors - something to keep an eye on, esp. if research increasingly says something else - but so far it hasn't)."

So if Mars is getting warmer that has no bearing whatsoever on whether the Earth might be getting warmer? Let's see... is there a giant thermonuclear reaction happening somewhere in the solar system that could be generating both warmenings at the same time? Hmmm... If only I could answer that question then I'd know if other planets getting warmer, along with the Earth, might be explained by something other than man-made atmospheric gases.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

57 But don't worry, Dan S., other scientists say there's no way the sun is involved in heating Mars or the Earth so it's okay to believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Personally I prefer to believe in the Magic Dragon from the Candy Planet who brings candy to all the good boys and girls of the world.

58

Dan S. post #40:

"Notice how the IPCC . . . predictions for sea level rise . . . over the next 50 years was cut in half over the course of a single year? "

They were? Ok - reference?

Here you go; although this one states halving the prediction for 100 years:

UN Downgrades Man's Impact on the Climate: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml

Quote from article: "The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in."

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I will stand 100% behind the AGW believers when these climate scientists put out a prediction for March 21st for 5 consecutive years that is spot on for the folowing: 

what the mean ocean level will be (within 1 inch)

 the earth's albedo,

solar energy output,

CO₂ content of the atmosphere(in ppm),

water vapor content of the atmosphere (in ppm),

mean land temperature (accurate to 0.1º f) 

mean ocean temperature (accurate to 0.1º f), 

SO₂ (sulfur dioxide) content in the atmosphere (ppm), 

the weather forcast for 5 - 5 million + populatoin cities, 5 deserts, 5 mountain tops, 5 jungles, and Raleigh, NC.

And I don't want a new prediction each year. I want 1 prediction that covers those days, 5 years out.

I won't hold my breath though. They can't even predict 5 days out with more than 50% accuracy.

59

They can't even predict 5 days out with more than 50% accuracy.

......because the weather system has been thrown into complete chaos by your SUV emissions!

Our predictions clearly show that it will only get even more unpredictable as time goes by, and we'll have to revise even more of our estimates because of the damage your doing!

60

Not MY SUV!

 

I buy carbon credits!

/sacasm

61 I prefer Ace's term "ecopath" over Warm-mongers.

62 ★莫道不消魂，帘卷西风，人比黄花瘦★
塑料托盘 =>厦门塑料托盘，塑料托盘制造商，宁波塑料托盘，天津塑料托盘，北京塑料托盘。
仓储笼 =>仓储笼报价，苏州仓储笼，仓储笼诺恒，无锡仓储笼，广州仓储笼。
仓储货架 =>仓储货架厂，北京仓储货架，苏州仓储货架，无锡仓储货架，广州仓储货架。
货架厂 =>佛山货架厂，天津货架厂，成都货架厂，常熟货架厂，服装货架厂。
超市货架 =>超市货架尺寸，超市货架效果图，杭州超市货架，超市货架摆放，广州超市货架。
专业从事组合式仓储货架、建材超市及仓储式超市货架设计、制造、安装、调试的企业， 是国内最大的货架制造商之一。公司已承接近千座仓储货架(http://merryrack.cn.ec21.com)工程的设计、制造和安装。 ★鼠标好比爱情箭，上网一点胡乱窜★
货架公司 =>无锡货架公司，杭州货架公司，苏州货架公司，超市货架公司，广州货架公司。
广州货架 =>广州货架厂，广州货架批发市场，广州货架公司，广州货架市场，广州货架制作。。
北京货架 =>北京货架批发市场，北京货架厂家，北京货架制作，北京货架价格，北京货架销售。
仓库货架 =>仓库货架厂，北京仓库货架，无锡仓库货架，深圳仓库货架，广州仓库货架。
南京货架 =>南京货架厂，南京货架网，南京货架公司，南京货架制造厂，南京货架价格。
塑料托盘. 南京麦瑞（塑料托盘）有限公司是国内专业从事（塑料托盘http://blog.hsw.cn/261491/viewspace-328795.html）集研发、生产、 销售、安装于一体的大规模企业之一。汇集国内（ 塑料托盘）制造业众多技术精英，所 ...

63 ★白天没水，晚上没电，发的工资只够买面★ 仓储笼 =>南京仓储笼，求购仓储笼，折叠式仓储笼，苏州仓储笼，无锡仓储笼。 仓储笼 =>仓储笼图片，仓储笼报价，常州仓储笼，麦瑞仓储笼，折叠仓储笼。 仓储货架 =>仓储货架厂，北京仓储货架，苏州仓储货架，无锡仓储货架，广州仓储货架。 货架厂 =>佛山货架厂，天津货架厂，成都货架厂，常熟货架厂，服装货架厂。 超市货架 =>超市货架尺寸，超市货架效果图，杭州超市货架，超市货架摆放，广州超市货架。 塑料托盘专业制造商—塑料托盘制造有限公司南京麦瑞欢迎您！南京麦瑞（塑料托盘 http://www.ewkej.com/suliaotuopan.htm）有限公司是国内最具影响的物流产品大型生产企业，主要生产的产品有塑料托盘，塑料卡板箱， ... ★打开邓选，找到答案：原来是社会主义初级阶段★ 货架公司 =>无锡货架公司，杭州货架公司，苏州货架公司，超市货架公司，广州货架公司。 广州货架 =>广州货架厂，广州货架批发市场，广州货架公司，广州货架市场，广州货架制作。。 北京货架 =>北京货架批发市场，北京货架厂家，北京货架制作，北京货架价格，北京货架销售。 仓库货架 =>仓库货架厂，北京仓库货架，无锡仓库货架，深圳仓库货架，广州仓库货架。 南京货架 =>南京货架厂，南京货架网，南京货架公司，南京货架制造厂，南京货架价格。 塑料托盘. 南京麦瑞（塑料托盘）有限公司是国内专业从事（塑料托盘 http://ybmerry.photo.hexun.com/1043873_section.html）集研发、生产、 销售、安装于一体的大规模企业之一。汇集国内（ 塑料托盘）制造业众多技术精英，所 ... ★再往后翻，我靠！还一百年不变★ 木托盘 =>木托盘标准，木托盘价格，塑木托盘，熏蒸木托盘，求购木托盘。 工具柜 =>工具柜价格，天钢工具柜，北京工具柜，安全工具柜，苏州工具柜。 工作台 =>超净工作台，防静电工作台，净化工作台，回转工作台，超净工作台价格。 工作桌 =>不锈钢工作桌，厦门工作桌，重型工作桌，电脑工作桌，防静电工作桌。 周转箱 =>塑料周转箱，防静电周转箱，周转箱英文，周转箱模具，中空板周转箱。 塑料托盘广告招租网热线：13805186030，塑料托盘在中国正处于高速增长期。目前，国内流通所需（塑料托盘http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/reader_4fd7a58a01000d54.html）每年约为8000万只，其中港口用2000万只（出口），总需求还会进一步 ...

64 ¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹¥»¥Õ¥ì¥¢¥À¥ë¥È¥¨¥íSEXÉ÷¯¥ª¥Ê¥Ë¡¼½Ð²ñ¤¤¥¨¥í¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹¥»¥Õ¥ì¥¨¥Ã¥Á½Ð²ñ¤¤½Ð²ñ¤¤¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹ÁÇ¿Í¥¨¥Ã¥ÁµðÆý½Ï½÷½Ï½÷SEX½Ï½÷

65  塑料托盘 托盘 托盘 仓储笼 塑料托盘 托盘 手推车 钢托盘

66 货架 货架 托盘 托盘 google排名

67 UGG Boots Sale
ugg shoes
ugg classic
cheap ugg
UGG UK
bape shoes
bape shoes sale
cheap bape shoes
UGG UK
UGG boots sale
UGG Classic
discount UGG
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Amelie Suede
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Classic Cardy
cheap UGG Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet
UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Coquette Casual
UGG Gypsy Sandal
UGG Halendi Sandal
UGG Hammond Slipper
UGG Infant's Erin Baby
UGG KnightsBridge
UGG Layback Slipper
UGG Lo Pro Button
UGG Matala Sandal
UGG Napoule Sandal
UGG New Arrival 5389
UGG New Short Boots

68 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

69 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

70 吊具 索具 吊装设备

71 buy air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force one
UGG Boots
UGG Australia
UGG Shoes
UGG Sale
Cheap UGG
mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt saleform usa

72 buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

73 Replica watches | Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica watches | soccer jersey supplier | Replica Omega | Emporio Armani Fake Watches | Replica Rado Watch | Fake Alain Silberstein | Jaeger LeCoultre Fake | Hamilton Watches Replica | Wholesale Jaeger LeCoultre Watch | Corum Watches Replica | Replica Mont Blanc Watches | Fake Louis Vuitton | Parmigiani Watch Replica

74 Fake Watches | Replica Cartier | Fake Watches | Replica Rolex | Replica Cartier | Patek Philippe Replica | Raymond Weil Watches Replica | Swiss Chanel Ceramic Replica Watch | Cartier Watches | Fake Cartier Watches | Bedat & Co Watches | Baume & Mercier Replica Watch | Omega Replica Watches | Concord Replica Watches | Replica Vacheron

75 Fake Watches | Replica Watches | Replica Omega | Replica watches | Replica Breitling Watches | Breguet Fake Watch | Christian Dior Watches Replica | replica watches | Fake Breitling | Other Replica Watch | Fake Iwc Watches | U-boat Watch | Calvin Klein Watch | Fake Christian Dior Watch | Replica Benz Watches

76 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

77 replica soccer jersey | Fake Watches | Replica watches | replica soccer jersey | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica watches | soccer jersey wholesale | replica soccer jersey | replica watch | replica wristwatch | replica wristwatch | Luxury watches | replica wristwatch | replica watch | replica wristwatch | replica wristwatch | watches brand | replica wristwatch | watches brand | watches brand | Luxury watches | replica watches | best replica watches | replica watches | replica watches | replica wristwatch | Luxury watches | watches brand | replica watch | replica wristwatch | Luxury watches | best replica watches | Luxury watches | replica watches | replica watches | replica wristwatch | Luxury watches | Luxury watches

78 I will have a hard time buying ugg classic cardy at normal brick and mortar store for now on knowing that I can browse the largest selection I have ever seen and purchase confidently. Thanks for being a great company.Although your ugg boots cardy website is entered by users, the site has a lot of accurate and useful information on it.your net shop is kept to a minimum and favours websites connected to the ugg cardy boots Web Design Library in appearance and subject.
The popular blue ugg is renowned for its comfort. But some doctors worry that the popular black ugg could cause serious foot pain in the long run.So some podiatrists across the country are telling ugg classic cardy lovers to watch their steps. In fact,there is nothing wrong!
The crochet boots online retailer also knows bargain-hungry shoppers are scouring the Web for discounts, and its UGG Classic Crochet rivals are more than happy to provide them. So it is putting coupon codes on ugg classic crochet that customers can use to save money on its site.

79 Plating Earring Fashion | Titanium Bracelets Fashion | Wood Bangle Yiwu | Tiffany Rings Wholesale | Cutting Tungsten Bracelet Fashion | Casting Pendant Cheap | Stone Bracelets | Casting Earring Wholesale | Cutting Bracelet | Wholesale Wood Bracelet Jewelry | Watches Fashion | Carbon Pendants Best | Fashion Jewelry Yiwu | Earrings Tiffany Luxury | Wholesal Laser Earring | Fashion bracelets | Business Cards Yiwu | Magnet Bracelet Best | Business Cards Yiwu | Line Earring

80 Watches Gucci Fashion | Replica Rolex Watches | Gucci Belt Replica Watches | Replica Emporio Armani Watches | Watches Audemars Piguet Fashion | Watches Gucci Fashion | Watches Swiss Fashion | Replica Blancpain Watches | Watches Bulgari Fashion | Rado Fake Watches | Ulysse Nardin Fake Watches | Technomarine Replica Watches | Jacob & Co. Fake Watches | Watches Rolex Fashion | Bedat & CO Replica Watches | Jacques Lemans Fake Watches | Watches Louis vuitton Belt Fashion | Watches Girard Perregaux Fashion | Watches Daniel Roth Fashion | Watches Rado Fashion

81 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.

82 rdtxz buy cheap wow gold qbxv wow gold,oxfv buy wow gold zsujo,wow power leveling,jbiwwh wow gold mkrpk,cheap wow gold,aoahrt buy wow gold cahin,buy wow gold,aipie cheap wow gold qepzj,world of warcraft gold,pnvqfp buy wow gold jyzvb,wow gold,itqlmf wow power leveling arzel,wow power leveling,bnzw buy wow gold rjazk,cheap wow gold,wfdtrv wow gold xpbeu,buy wow gold,dynzlf cheap wow gold rkflw,world of warcraft gold,kgxqep buy wow gold wrvqgg.