BTW, I am still waiting for you to tell me specifically why the regressions I posted are "meaningless". Pretty bold assessment coming from someone who is too lazy or incompetent (likely both) to do his own research, preferring instead to frantically cut and paste irrelevant google searches to arguments he is losing. So man up for a change and defend your comments with verifiable facts - or just p*ssy out like you usually do.
Wow. Hard to argue with such rationality ...
You've long established that you're not interested in debating the matter dispassionately. You're paranoid and reasonably intelligent, always a dangerous combination, convincing yourself that you and a handful of like-minded paranoiacs have cracked the code on a vast conspiracy involving, literally, tens of thousands of independent scientists who study climate for a living, governments all over the world, the UN, George Soros, and fronted by the brilliantly insidious embodiment of evil that is Al Gore.
Neither Newf nor I (and Newf has worked far harder at it) have any hope of parting you from this faith in the vast conspiracy. You are perfectly capable of dispassionately studying the large number of widely varying across multiple fields of study that all point to a warming planet: changing climate patterns, changing migratory patterns, epidemiology, glacial retreat, rising sea levels, not to mention the actual sea, land and air temperature measurements for which you (and Watts/McKitrick) are inventing a whole new branch of statistical analysis that nobody besides conservative bloggers accepts.
Neither I nor Newf can shove your obnoxious head into the water. So I'm not really trying. Newf is beyond capable at arguing against your statistical magic. And it's patently clear that you're not interested in hearing any arguments otherwise. I pretty much decided to not waste a whole lot of my time with you after you revealed yourself to be a creationist, which pretty well sealed the deal for me that you're far more interested in rationalizing your own personal ideology than dispassionately understanding the science.
And I fully expect you to accuse the accuser here, claim I'm doing the same thing, except in a far more insulting and ad hominem fashion. But I really have very little interest in hurling insults back and forth.
As for the specific claims in this post, aside from the assassination of William Connolley's character, I've yet to see any evidence that indicates he's wrong about his assessment of the "global cooling scare." Afterall, the literature is open. Since we're trying to equivocate the modern warming "scare" with the 1970's cooling "scare" I'm sure you can find the same relative number of tens of thousands of papers from that era, overwhelming the academic research, offering solutions of dumping MORE greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to counter, etc. Should be easy.
As to your "97% abortions" accusation, no one ever claimed you said it, Frisky (and if you haven't noticed there are several on here who seem to have come to the conclusion that you are a bit fast and loose with your claims in a number of areas) likened your stance on PP to that of John Kyl who DID say that 97% of PP was abortions. But since you asked, here again is exactly what you said:
Which was shown to you by others (not me) to be false, both in terms of proportion of procedures performed (really false) and in revenue earned (still false).