Bachmann promised “to mimic the spirit of John Wayne in Waterloo”. Why does Michelle want to mimic the spirit of a serial killer?

She also received $260,000.00 in farm subsidies & her husband received $30,000.00 of federal funds for his clinic. Michelle just went on FOX & said “my husband & I didn’t receive a penny from the family farm”. But…..her financial disclosure forms say she received $32 grand & $105 grand between 2006 & 2009. Huh?

She also said 30,000 civilians were killed by NATO air strikes. Where is this substantiated? In addition, she said some members of Congress are un-American. It is her duty to gave names & positions immediately. Where is her press conference on her un-American colleagues?

Where all her foster children l5 years old when they lived with her?

I apologise Greg …

(Rest ofcomment edited by blog owner who is annoyed at this commenter.)

Also, carbon and oxygen are both necessary for life. C+O=CO. Can I flood your house with carbon monoxide? Why not? Are you alarmist for not wanting that?

#1 is a lie. http://www.skepticalscience.com/phil-jones-warming-since-1995-significant.html

#2 is a lie – and that’s why it’s not sourced to anything peer-reviewed. It includes complete ignorance of things like Liebig’s law of the minimum. It includes complete ignorance of the degree to which plants become tough, spindly, and unproductive. It doesn’t hold any factors constant for comparison. And so on.

#3 is a lie across the board, and a more obviously stupid lie nowadays, when the hockey stick has been confirmed independently by about 20 separate lines of evidence.

#4 is a mixture of lies and outdated info: http://environmentalideas.blogspot.com/2009/05/global-warming-causes-carteret-islands.html – calling the claims in the policy part of the AGW WG IV – which included information from all sources, not just scientific papers – about the Himalayan glacier melting probability “Pachauri’s claim” is a straight-up lie.

#5 Is mere assertion, not backed up by anything whatsoever. The closest we’ve had recently was a completely scientifically ignorant blurb for one sort of geoengineering from the quacks who write the Freakonomics books. Their sole source was MSFT alumnus and patent troll Nathan Myrhvold. Among the significant errors in his laughable analysis was a mistaken belief that solar panels are all black, and that their albedo negates their effect on climate change, and an absolute ignorance of the lifespan of an amount of increased carbon in the atmosphere.

#6 is a vague tendentious question-begging lie, straight out of Mark Morano – like most such GOP commenters on science, he’s a dirty tricks campaign operative, lobbyist, and PR specialist. His knowledge of science wouldn’t impress a 5th grader.

#7 is another lie, and makes no distinction between states (nations) to boot. That’s why it, too, is unsourced.

The entire list of questions is being spammed all over scienceblogs. It’s nothing but rote, robotic dittobot trollpoints. To not dismiss it is to waste the time of people with greater educational attainment and a stronger sense of civic responsibility with the repetitious lies of a pack of mechanistic, idiotic sociopaths.
#7

Oil companies pwn scientists. Again.

Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10% & that the consequent influence on world hunger is more beneficial than any currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming?

Do you accept that the warming trend will cause the growth of arid regions where fertile regions are now, and may result in less crops altogether?

Do you accept that the Hockey Stick, as originally presented by Mann and the IPCC contained calculations that were inconsistent with good science and that Mann’s refusal to make calculations and algorithms available for checking were inconsistent with scientific principle?

Do you accept that all the corrections still show the same warming, and that the preliminary report by a Koch-sponsered group of anti-warming researchers has shown the same warming trends?

Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side, from Al Gore’s claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri’s claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was “voodoo” were untrue and insupportable even at the time.

Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the denialist side, from Monckton to Plimer, were untrue and insupportable even at the time.

Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud or telling of obvious untruths. on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?

Do you accept that the refusal of denialists to denounce fraud or telling of obvious untruths on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?

Of the alleged “consensus” – can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state, who support catastrophic warming & if not can you explain how something can be a consensus when no member of a subset of 60% of the alleged consenting, consent?

Can you define just what you mean by “paid by the state”?
Have a research grant? Work for a university that accepts money from the state? Was once given a dollar for coffee by someone employed by the state?

Do you accept George Monbiot as your personal anti-Christ?