Sorry but you are wrong about your comment on Stabenow. She really could be that dumb.

i don't have capital letters because i couldn't afford to buy them with this computer since my money is going to be taken away by cap & tax bill. i criticized you for cherry picking the data you wanted to use while you accused others of doing the exact same thing. something that is very typical of global warming socialists. it's not just in the states but globally this summer there have been recorded setting lows or near record setting low all over the planet. how's that for cherry picking the data.
by the way it's lunaticcringeradio stop cherry picking just the parts you want to use.
here's some capitol letters for you
BITE ME

"Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, has worked in a few executive positions for left-wing talk radio networks, including Air America ... this while Senator Stabenow has been working to reinstate the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Conflict of interest anyone?"

On the contrary, there is no conflict of interest. Air America needed a conservative counterpart to pay the bills, which is where FD comes in to play.

from AskOxford.com (not counting the meanings that don't apply):

climate

• noun
1 the general weather conditions prevailing in an area over a long period.

change

• verb
1 make or become different. 2 exchange for another. 3 move from one to (another). 4 (change over) move from one system or situation to another.

• noun
1 the action of changing. 2 an instance of becoming different.

Loose language, really. If you point out that the weather is not changing as predicted over a period of time for a particular region, it can be argued that the period of time quoted is not in line with the theory of climate change, and therefore the theory is still valid. The size of the region can be easily disputed. And it's even easier to debate the minutia of what exactly constitutes a 'change'. Semantically this makes it very easy to defend climate change as a viable theory in the absence of tangible evidence.

So if you challenge the theory by quoting either a cooling trend or a stable trend over any time period for a region, climate change proponents can claim one of the following:
(a) that the period used to define the trend was not valid because it wasn't long-term enough
(b) same as (a) but the period is too long term; that is, recent trends towards warming, if detected, supercede any long-term trend showing stability or cooling, because the process is supposedly accelerating (hence the 'edge of the precipice' talk that sometimes accompanies climate change)
(c) that the amount of change still fits the theory, because a small cooling here is trumped by a slightly larger warming there (useful when a small cooling trend or stable trend is shown)
(d) that the region defined to measure the climate was too local or too broad (useful when the data shows a strong cooling trend)

This is precisely why global warming, which was fast being seen in the general public as neither global nor exclusively warming, has been renamed as climate change. Depending on the restrictions imposed on the words climate and change, it can always be argued that climate change is occuring. This has a wonderful benefit of shifting the debate away from the question of whether or not any of it is caused by our activities, possibly the most important part of the debate. It really is a brilliant euphemism.

JT Cornpone.............I got the answers........
climate->meteorology due to =oprotunity
temp->co2 when it's hot dogs pant
h2o->temp when it's hot I pant
stop breat..............................
temp fo' earth->78 degrees...'cept my neighborhood.
mixtures of gas->2 to 1???
ecosystem adapt? it'll kill us.......

how did I get so smart???? I went to the same skools osamabama did. what skools were they........sorry that's a secret, same as osamabamas

and no you can't see my lab report....I mean birth certificate

Sounds like this one needs to be reminded of the fact that if it feels like more than two fingers its probably a richard!

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

to answer your primary question.

You forgot that somebody might have passed gas on her plane. Don't forget, according to the UN, if we don't do something about global warming within 4 months, we'll be doomed, all doomed (I kinda sound like that bum from Friday the 13th).

To Brian Fantana, three questions:
1- Are you related to Wayne Fantana and the Mind Benders?
2- Do you know that great NFL Quarterback, what's his name...Joe Fantana?
3- Didn't the Coca-Cola company name a drink after you? Fanta Fruit-Punch?

it was the abrupt climate change about 12,800 years before present (BP).

Around 15,000 years ago, the Earth started warming abruptly after ~ 100,000 years of an "ice age"; this is known as a glacial termination. The large ice sheets, which covered significant parts of North America and Europe, began melting as a result. A climatic optimum known as the "Bölling-Allerød" was reached shortly thereafter, around 14,700 before present. However, starting at about 12,800 BP, the Earth returned very quickly into near glacial conditions (i.e. cold, dry and windy), and stayed there for about 1,200 years: this is known as the Younger Dryas (YD), since it is the most recent interval where a plant characteristic of cold climates, Dryas Octopetala, was found in Scandinavia.

The most spectacular aspect of the YD is that it ended extremely abruptly (around 11,600 years ago), and although the date cannot be known exactly, it is estimated from the annually-banded Greenland ice-core that the annual-mean temperature increased by as much as 10°C in 10 years.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/arch/examples.shtml

good thing them GW didn't get on to this. they think they've got climate change. they would go crazy if they prophesized 10C change in about 10 years.

I suggest you read "Climate of Extremes" by Patrick J Michaels, Or Chapter 8 of Paul Levin’s "Liberty or tyranny if you dare. When you put scientists on the government dole you tend to get Hanson’s who toe the party line because that is where the next handout is from (and hand outs beget more hand outs). And if you study the earth’s climate you will find that there is no such thing as “normal climate”. Normal Climate is a constant state of change especially from areas such as solar radiation, suspended dust, and water vapor that have a much greater impact than CO2.

We often marvel at how in the world these crackpots with such low IQs get elected.My take on it is that no one of intelligence wants the job.Smarter people are too busy earning a living to be attracted to a lazy,tedious job.Those that want it are full of their own self worth.They hide their true beliefs until they get elected by those of us who cull out the others and pick the lesser of two evils.Occasionally someone comes along who truly wants to fix the mess.If they get elected and do not exit the network of corruption quickly enough,they also become full of self worth and laziness.Term limits would fix it because we voters also become lazy and if we do bother to vote we just mark the name we are familiar with.
Lets not return anyone in 2010.I miss the days of gridlock,it was the best of times.

Were Democrats always this touched in the head? They really are the stupid, drug-addicted pinkos from the 60's and 70's, aren't they?

Al Gore is the dipshiite that really got this new flat-Earth movement rolling.

Anybody remember where this global warming nonsense started? The hole (or thin spot) in the ozone layer. Of course, nobody discusses that phenomenon anymore, considering it magically closed up.

Good one! Maybe what she is feeling is all that polyester not allowing her skin to breathe...aww man...that makes me nauseous thinking about it. This why as long as there are bad career politicians around, we'll always have lots of joke material. Let's hope nobody tells her how stupid that statement is. Better yet, don't tell Stan...he's got me laughing too. Gotta run, y'all. Teaching Polar Bears the backstroke...

We are not capable of causing any permanent damage. The earth is remarkable in her ability to heal. This is just another variance in the cycle, nothing we can do about it. Humans are very adaptable, we'll just have to learn to work around the natural climate changes. Out and out polution is of course stupid, but just like with health care, we don't need another monstrous bureaucracy, just common sense.

Use your head and quit trying to make money for Al Gore, Jeffrey Immelt, Nancy Pelosi and all the others betting big money on Crap & Tax.

I agree with Stan. We can all feel the earth crying out for our mercy, but do we listen as we sit in our Hummers, float in our heated pools at cookouts, or fly in our airplanes? Yes, it's funny to laugh but clearly this person has a pure aura and feels the cries of the earth. If only you mean, intolerant neocons would take out the ear plugs and listen instead of mouthing off.

would someone ask her to go up front and open the door of the plane to check the temp. i think she'll have her question answered and we'll all be better off.

I bet if they were to get the new jets they tried sneeking in, she wouldn't feel a thing!

Much of the eastern U.S. did have a very cool July . . . but much of the West and Southwest had a very warm July. See this very interesting chart from the National Weather Service at http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090810_julystats.html

Point is, for everyone who "proves" global warming is "false" by citing a record low temperature somewhere on Earth, I can find somewhere that had unusually hot weather. Similarly, someone who uses a heat wave to "prove" global warming can have the argument discredited by identifying cold weather somewhere else.

Global warming refers to long-term large-scale trends in temperatures, not one cold day, week, or month in one place.

Wow!! She really has a gift. Now if she can sniff out drugs, we can get her a real job.

Perhaps she just needs to ask the Stewardess how to operate the air control valve above her seat and let in a touch of that cool air from the upper troposphere.

Somebody tell her that is her body contributed to global warming - you know, flashes

both you and her.

neal, please dont' confuse weather with climate change.

You both need help.

Neal, she not only is, but has a bookend in our Illinois moonbat, Dick Durbin.

DRIP baby, DRIP.