Global warming kooks need to cool off
Cream of Wheat
by George Will
. .Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive
Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973)
reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we
must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science
Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even
Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have
begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia
are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down
about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The
Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost
unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the
global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said
"may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21,
1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely
considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that
the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since
about 1950.". . .
====
(2) Cream of Wheat
http://tinyurl.com/pc34k
Newsweek's "The Cooling World" (April 28, 1975):
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Get a load of how this article begins: "There are ominous signs
that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change
dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic
decline in food production– with serious political implications
for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output
could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. . ."
That bullshit was written in 1975, enviro-weenies.
Jim
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/incurious-george/
Incurious George
Filed under: Climate Science? david @ 8:22 am
George Will argues now that no one would have noticed the 0.6 deg. C of
global average warming to date, if the irresponsible press had not
deliberately produced anxiety by pointing it out. He could be right. I
expect no one would have personally noticed the ozone hole either. My
grandmother smoked like a chimney and lived to be almost 100. If that
nasty press had not deliberately stoked my anxieties about cigarettes
and lung cancer, I would never have figured out the connection based on
my personal experience. George argues that big crusading journalism is
the problem. Ignorance is strength, right, George?
And, oh yeah, the global cooling stories, which appeared 30 years ago
in the main-stream press (not the scientific literature). Shall we
compare this with Will's deliberate and repeated distortion of a real
warning emerging from the scientific enterprise, continuing to the
present day?
He looks like such an earnest man. I just don't get it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/incurious-george/
Mitchell Holman
news:SIO6Q5Q73881...@reece.net.au:
> (1) http://snipurl.com/okrd
> by George Will
>
> . .Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive
> Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973)
> reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we
> must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science
> Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even
> Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have
> begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia
> are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down
> about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The
> Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost
> unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the
> global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said
> "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21,
> 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely
> considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that
> the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since
> about 1950.". . .
> ====
> (2) Cream of Wheat
> http://tinyurl.com/pc34k
From the Bush Administration itself:
"According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's
surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit
in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past
two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of
the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human
activities. Scientists know for certain that human activities
are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing
levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the
atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented
There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities."
H2-PV NOW
Cream of Wheat wrote:
> Newsweek's "The Cooling World" (April 28, 1975):
> http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
>
> Get a load of how this article begins: "There are ominous signs
> that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change
> dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic
> decline in food production- with serious political implications
> for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output
> could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. . ."
>
> That bullshit was written in 1975, enviro-weenies.
OOOOOHHHH The PEER-REVIEWED NEWZWEEK Magazine said THAT!!! They did
mention three scientists, sort of, about one sentence each, which could
be exaggerated to fit the premise that NEWZ-WEAK was selkling at the
moment. Got PEER-REVIEWED citations?
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enterprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
willful intent to violate FEDERAL LAW.
SEPPtic Tank is an ORGANIZED CRIME front operation headed by lifelong
career-criminal S. Fred Singer.
In 1994 Singer wrote a science hoax piece for big tobacco. The piece
was submitted to RJ Reynolds lawyers pre-publication. The piece was
short some "peer-reviewers" so a request was made for some names of
tame "whitecoats" willing to lie for money to sign off on the document.
Ultimately a bunch of names appeared on this science hoax document, as
well as inside it's pages. The whole thing became evidence in the
FEDERAL trial of the Big Seven Tobacco Companies in the late 1990s. The
documents were produced by subpoena (a turm meaning "under pain", like
we will hurt you bad if you don't comply). The evidence passed due
process of law in a trial admitted as evidence. The judge ordered the
evidence posted online for 10 years at Big Tobacco's expense -- oh,
year, the Tobacco Companies also agreed to pay $246,000,000,000.00 too.
Fred Singer is corrupt and I have seen the evidence from the trial that
proved he is corrupt. He is an ORGANIZED CRIME figure who uses science
hoaxes for corporate clients to falsify the state of knowledge on
subjects his clients need confused and obfuscated.
SEPP was organized in the premises of a Sun Myung Moon-owned office
suite. Moon is also a career criminal who was convicted of tax evasion
and money laundering, sent to FREDERAL PRISON, and is a known felon
convict.
FRED SINGER's SEPPtic Tank moved to the offices of Charles G. Koch
Summer Fellows Program at the Koch-owned George Mason University.
Killer Charles G. Koch and brother Killer David Koch operate KOCH
INDUSTRIES, which itself has been convicted of the largest fine in
corporate history -- $35,000,000.00 for pollution of air, lands and
waters of six states.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/January/019enrd.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37628-2004Jul8.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/981d17e5ab07246f8525686500621079?OpenDocument
Charges G. Koch co-founded CATO Inst., David Koch sits on it's board
watching the family interests, and SINGER, MILLOY, MICHAELS, LINDZEN &
BALLING are all organized crime figures on the payrolls of a known
ORGANIZED CRIME ring founded by known ORGANIZED CRIME Lords.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html
Dr. Singer. SEPP's address is 4084 University Drive, Suite 101,
Fairfax, VA 22030 (Tel. 703-934-6932).
http://snipurl.com/og9j
Results about 172 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 Koch.
http://snipurl.com/og9o
Results about 92 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 SEPP.
http://snipurl.com/og9s
Resultsabout 149 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA 22030
IHS | "Institute for Humane Studies"
http://snipurl.com/oga1
Results about 581 for Fred Singer Koch IHS | "Institute for Humane
Studies".
http://snipurl.com/ogai
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
Documenting the Corruption of S. Fred Singer
http://snipurl.com/ogay
Results about 333 for "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A
Critical Examination".
Nosmo King
> (1) http://snipurl.com/okrd
You related to Babs? Perhaps share the same room at the institution? She
keeps posting this same out of date, irrelevant bullshit too, along with
a couple of other scientifically illiterate posters. You guys are such
numbskulls. You have no concept how science works or what it's even
about. You can go back a few more years and find that the earth was flat
and the sun revolved around the earth. Those concepts only go back a few
hundred years. Should we discount all of the evidence gathered to the
contrary? "Gee, we learned something new today, but it doesn't mean
anything because they believed something different a hundred years ago
and we have to stick with that!" Mars has canals, the moon is made of
green cheese, Bigfoot had an aliens baby. Stick with the stuff in the
supermarket tabloids and leave science to people who know what they're
talking about.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
> (1) http://snipurl.com/okrd
> by George Will
Fucking columnist thinks he's a scientist.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
Alohacyberian
news:SIO6Q5Q73881...@reece.net.au...
It's the same old scare-tactic sort of thing which makes doomsday
predictions in the vain hope the populace will put all their trust in
government and cede all their power to Big Brother. When it didn't work,
they switched to global warming, partly in a silly attempt to bankrupt one
of the inventors of a chlorofluorocarbons used in aerosol spray cans and who
was a major contributor to the Nixon presidential campaign and it was feared
would do the same for Ronald Reagan and other prominent Republicans. Of
course he was already a multi-millionaire, so taking chlorofluorocarbons off
the American market didn't hurt him even a little bit, nor do those and
other chlorofluorocarbons like freon hurt the ozone layer even a little bit.
One of the reasons the ban on chlorofluorocarbons didn't hurt him
financially is that the group of "environmentalists" and politicians who set
the standards agreed to allow an increase of 15% of the amount of
chlorofluorocarbons in use in third world countries. Astonishing logic:
the use of Chlorofluorocarbons in developed countries is damaging the ozone
layer and causing global warming; however, the use of Chlorofluorocarbons
in developed countries is not damaging the ozone layer and not causing
global warming. the But, it does show how easily radical environmentalists
are lead around by partisan politicians. Anyway, you're supposed to get all
hysterical and melodramatic about global warming and let the "experts" in
government make your decisions for you. And naturally there have been a
plethora of scientists who have pooh-poohed the global warming warnings,
but, the elite mainstream media is loathe to report it. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI or
CNN, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards & 150 foreign languages
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
JohnnyCJohnny
demonstrates what is different between the 1970s cooling talk and
today's scientific consensus on global warming. Back then talk of
cooling was from a few scientists and a few periodicals. Now, global
warming is supported by a consensus of scientific opinion and research.
There is no comparisson to the idle speculation about cooling that
occurred decades ago.
Arbusto Harken
Alohacyberian wrote:
> It's the same old scare-tactic sort of thing which makes doomsday
> predictions in the vain hope the populace will put all their trust in
> government and cede all their power to Big Brother.
"First of all, the NSA program is an important program in protecting
America. We're at war, and as Commander-in-Chief, I've got to use the
resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American
people. And that's what we're doing."
- G.W. Bush, 1/1/06
Lloyd Parker
You are a liar.
>One of the reasons the ban on chlorofluorocarbons didn't hurt him
>financially is that the group of "environmentalists" and politicians who set
>the standards agreed to allow an increase of 15% of the amount of
>chlorofluorocarbons in use in third world countries. Astonishing logic:
>the use of Chlorofluorocarbons in developed countries is damaging the ozone
>layer and causing global warming; however, the use of Chlorofluorocarbons
>in developed countries is not damaging the ozone layer and not causing
>global warming.
CFCs damage the ozone layer, and CFCs are a greenhouse gas.
>But, it does show how easily radical environmentalists
>are lead around by partisan politicians. Anyway, you're supposed to get all
>hysterical and melodramatic about global warming and let the "experts" in
>government make your decisions for you. And naturally there have been a
>plethora of scientists who have pooh-poohed the global warming warnings,
>but, the elite mainstream media is loathe to report it. KM
Look, little 6-year old, learn some damn science!
Scott Nudds
manage to find three references to scientific journals in which
climatologists warned of an imminent onset of an ice age.
What's the problem people? Can't you read? Or is there no evidence to
backup your assertion that Climatologists made such warnings in the 70's?
"Cream of Wheat" <thra...@reece.net.au> wrote
> . .Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive
> Northern Hemisphere glaciation."
Not a peer reviewed publication, but rather a popular press publication
like Newsday.
"Cream of Wheat" <thra...@reece.net.au> wrote
> Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists
are
> agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age."
Not a peer reviewed publication, but rather a popular press publication
like Newsday.
And they are right. In time we will probably experience one unless we
learn how to control the earth's climate - I think we have the means.
> The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing
Faster Than > Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers
"have
> begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia
> are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down
> about as fast as an ocean can cool."
Not a peer reviewed publication, but rather a newspaper.
> Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975)
Newspaper. Not a peer reviewed scientific journal.
> New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975)
Newspaper. Not a peer reviewed scientific journal.
> The Times (May 21, 1975)
Newspaper. Not a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Ho, humm.... It's been almost 16 years and these dullards still can't
manage to find three references to scientific journals in which
climatologists warned of an imminent onset of an ice age.
What's the problem people? Can't you read? Or is there no evidence to
backup your assertion that Climatologists made such warnings in the 70's?
Scott Nudds
Global Warming. They are the principle cause of Ozone depletion.
You are confusing Ozone depletion with Global warming.
Can you possibly be more stupid?
I don't think so.
"Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message news:Ii6Yf.55147>
z
> for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output
> could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. . ."
>
> That bullshit was written in 1975, enviro-weenies.
Excellent; give us a shout when George Will enters the 1980s.
Jim McGinn
"JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote
> You should have continued with the article,
I read it all.
> because in it Will clearly
> demonstrates what is different between the 1970s cooling talk and
> today's scientific consensus on global warming. Back then talk of
> cooling was from a few scientists and a few periodicals. Now, global
> warming is supported by a consensus of scientific opinion and research.
Thirty years from now, when this AGW hysteria has blown over, you or
somebody like you will be making the same excuse for todays climatological
alarmist.
> There is no comparisson to the idle speculation about cooling that
> occurred decades ago.
The fact is that there is no reliable evidence for catastrophic AGW. It's
speculation based on conjecture based on uncertainty.
Jim
Jim McGinn
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
> Ho, humm.... It's been almost 16 years and these dullards still can't
> manage to find three references to scientific journals in which
> climatologists warned of an imminent onset of an ice age.
Are you suggesting these periodicals were lieing?
Jim
Well Done
>OOOOOHHHH The PEER-REVIEWED NEWZWEEK Magazine said THAT!!!
>They did
>mention three scientists, sort of, about one sentence each, which could
>be exaggerated to fit the premise that NEWZ-WEAK was selkling at the
>moment. Got PEER-REVIEWED citations?
>
Anthropogenic were a few years ago predicting an Anthropogenic ice
age. You don't know that, do you? How stupid to claim this was just
the statement from a magazine. What an idiot you are.
>You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
>ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation,
<snip>
Good lord, you're a twit.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
Well Done
<snip>
>You can go back a few more years and find that the earth was flat
>and the sun revolved around the earth.
The fact is you AGW guys are just guessing. You have no clue.
You have no solution to GW, either. That's not your fault though,
because there is NO solution. Man's contribution is a footnote to a
footnote, which mean's man's efforts to "solve" GW are trivial.
Nosmo King
news:01r13252b5akusqke...@4ax.com:
The fact of the matter is that I don't think that a whole lot can be done
at this stage of the game either. That is just my opinion. And, no, the
global warming guys are not just guessing. That they are is just your
opinion. The facts tend to speak for themselves if you care to take the
time to look at them. If you don't, you don't. If you want to "prove" that
they are wrong, then by all means do so. Make sure you use your own data
and don't believe what you read in the Oil Drillers Monthly Newsletter.
Nosmo King
news:0agYf.55151$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
And the evidence for YOUR sweeping claims is...........? Hmm. Don't have
any, do you?
Nosmo King
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
Not scientific magazines, just articles written by columnists or stringers
trying to make a buck selling filler pieces. Let's see the WHOLE article
and the byline, not a cherry picked line or two from something 25 years out
of date. Go to the scientific literature and not "Science Digest" which is
the equivalent of Readers Digest. That's like having your doctor read up on
the latest medical procedure in USA Today instead of the New England
Journal of Medicine. The lack of scientific literacy in the country is
appalling. But I guess we need hamburger flippers and supermarket shelf
stockers too.
Jim McGinn
"Nosmo King" <Marl...@WinstonSalme.com> wrote
> Go to the scientific literature and not "Science Digest"
I have gone to the scientific literature. My goal was to find the smoking
gun of catastrophic AGW. What I found is that the catastrophic aspects of
AGW exist only in the models--not that there's necessarily anything wrong
with that. My next step was to determine what level of confidence I can put
on these model results. And it seems I've run into a brick wall. Nobody
seems to be able to provide anything substantive as to what degree of
confidence should reasonably be attributed to the computer models that
indicate catastrophic AGW. What I am finding can best be described as a
bait and switch routine. I now realize that if you ask a GW alarmist about
the confidence level of the models that they will respond with information
about validating the underlying assumption of climate theory, or they will
respond in an attempt to assure me that we can trust the scientists, or they
will respond with an explanation about advances in our understanding of
theory, or they will respond with a discussion of doomsday scenarios, or
they will respond with their paranoia about Bush and big oil. Unfortunately
they never seem to get around to responding with anything substantive that
would provide me some way of enumerating the level of confidence on the
model results that indicate catastrophic AGW.
Jim
Global Warming @ARMY.com
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Thirty years from now, when this AGW hysteria has blown over, you or
> somebody like you will be making the same excuse for todays climatological
> alarmist.
> The fact is that there is no reliable evidence for catastrophic AGW. It's
> speculation based on conjecture based on uncertainty.
There are six main trails of conclusive evidence which make
anthropogenic (Man-Made) definate beyond any reasonable doubt.
Each one of these trails confirms all of the others.
+++ Coral Bleaching in 1998. It never was worse than that during any
time since apes stood upright. There would be massive fossil beds of
corals to testify to higher sea temperatures. The best fossils are all
within 6,000 years old and they are clear and unambiguous. There never
was a worse coral bleaching event in the last 6,000 years than 1998.
1998 came within two degrees of killing 90% of all the nurseries of the
ocean. Any event which ever killed 90% of the nurseries of the ocean
are recorded in fossil beds -- it happened five times in global
history, and the last time was 65,000,000 years ago, when the Alverez
Asteroid struck near Yucatan.
So we have established without doubt that 1998 is as hot as it can get
with higher oceanic life surviving. Fortunately for the oceans, vicious
storms have been relieving the heat content of the seas sufficiently so
that oceanic life is continuing, although 2002 was also a bad year for
coral bleaching. We have to pray for hurricanes to save us from death
of higher life in the seas.
+++ Another trail leading to the inescapable conclusion of Man-Made
global warming is the flooding rate in Bangladesh. This one is far more
complex, and has plenty of superficial confounding-appearance data.
First, there was a massive earthquake in the 1950s which changed river
course and land elevations. Second there was a political change when
"east" Pakistan became independent. Govt records are likely confused
and may still reside physically divided between countries. Third, the
generalized poverty means that good science and good archives are hard
to maintain.
Despite these illusions of confounding, the history of the area is not
a blank. It has been highly densely populated for centuries. India has
kept better records of the area. It has always had some flooding of
intermittant amounts and intervals. The poorest population gets the
floodplains because nobody else wanted them -- they adapted to short
flooding of mild levels of localized nature and could move out of the
way.
The cultures celebrate the changes of the seasons in various traditions
and festivals. The melting of the Himalaya snows is fairly predictable
and steady, just like the monsoons arrive within days of a calendar
date each year. Deforestation below the treeline does not completely
explain earlier dates of annual melting above the treeline.
Severe flooding began after 1954. It first occurred an average of ten
year intervals. In the recent time span it has progressively increased
in frequency, secondly to about every 6 years, now to every other year.
Blame Game has put the cause on upstream deforestation, but there is
earlier snowmelt each year.
That snowmelt was separated from the monsoons by time, and the two peak
water flows were separated by time. Now the snowmelt coincides by date
with the monsoons and record-breaking historically severe flooding is
the result. Nothing this severe is known for hundreds of years, and the
frequency of repetition is a physical impact requiring a physical
explanation.
The flooding is confirmed by the greenhouse gases causing Global
Warming. One must provide an alternate explanation for the trapped heat
to escape the system. Unless one can do that, the provisional
explanation, Man-Made Global Warming, stands unchallenged.
+++ Massive retreats of glaciers and icepacks. One must explain the the
sudden rate of increased meltaway. Global Warming explains this effect
without sweeping any data under the rug. Greenhouse Gases are trapping
heat in the system.
+++ Increased temperatures recorded across the globe by every measuring
means available on the planet. Records are broken with regularity. The
coral bleaching limit shows these are not representative of cyclic
heating events, but are anomalous in the geological record. Nothing
like this has happened in 65,000,000 years of fossil evidence. All the
direct and proxy temperature measures agree within acceptable errors
ranges.
+++ El Nino is a direct effect of sea surface heat accumulation. While
El Nino leaves poor records in the fossil archives, the known observed
rate was averaging 7 years between El Nino events. With greater recent
measured thermal storage in the sea surface, the El Nino events have
been forced to 2-3 year intervals. Physical events require physical
exlanations. The explanation which fits the measurements is Global
Warming from Man-Made Greenhouse Gases.
+++ Storm intensity and frequency is directly related to heat fuel
stored in the tropical oceans. Currently there is peak for all
recorded history of 25% more total hurricanes, more severe hurricanes
and closer frequency of hurricane-level storms. Add that to 500
tornadoes on land in the USA in May 2003 and you see tangible proof of
heat-engines at work disposing of surplus heat according to the best
modern physics theories.
NOBODY has a comprehensive alternate explanation which explains ALL of
this data, and any explanation which fails to explain ALL of the data
may be downrated as attempted Leprechans at work.
Besides the main trails there are many minor trails of evidence, all
confirming, none positively disconfirming the Man-Made Greenhouse Gases
Explanation.
All of the attempted counter-explanations deal with one trail at a
time, such as land-use changes and deforestation upstream from
Bangladesh. All they prove of a certainty is there are piggish humans
who care nothing about the downstream misery of those less fortunate,
thereby strengthening the case against the organized crime rings
falsifying science and committing felony frauds to piggishly injure
downstream less-fortunates. That evidence confirms criminal psychology,
but does not injure the measured recorded and reliable evidence of
increased frequency beyond the power of deforestation only to cause.
Nosmo King
Evidence goes beyond modeling, which is but one tool. Ice core sampling,
glacial melting, polar ice cap melting, coral reef die offs, increased
ocean temperatures, increase in weather extremes to name a few. All of
these elements go into modeling, to be sure, but each is very telling in
it's own right. You know, nothing says you have to accept any of it.
Declare them to all be wrong and go your merry way. It won't change
anything whether you believe it or not. But I would avoid buying property
along the Gulf Coast.
Jim McGinn
"Global Warming @ARMY.com" <Global....@ARMY.com> wrote
> There are six main trails of conclusive evidence which make
> anthropogenic (Man-Made) definate beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
> Each one of these trails confirms all of the others.
>
> +++ Coral Bleaching in 1998.
Yeah, but you know how those coral lie.
> corals to testify to higher sea temperatures.
Perjury.
Global Warming @ARMY.com
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
Scott Nudds
"Well Done" <Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote
> The fact is, the same ilk now assuring us that Global Warming is
> Anthropogenic were a few years ago predicting an Anthropogenic ice
> age. You don't know that, do you?
Well no I don't know that, and for 15 years we have been asking you and
your denialist brethren to provide 3 examples from peer reviewed scientific
journals in which it was warned that an ice age was imminent.
So far you and your brethren have not been able to provide any references
at all.
Why is it taking you people so long to support your assertion?
Maybe you are just lying.
Ya, that's it... You and your denialist brethren are liars.
What other possible explanation could there be?
Scott Nudds
> > Ho, humm.... It's been almost 16 years and these dullards still can't
> > manage to find three references to scientific journals in which
> > climatologists warned of an imminent onset of an ice age.
Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Are you suggesting these periodicals were lieing?
No, clearly you are the person here who is lying. The scientific community
made no such warnings. Contrary to your earlier claims.
But today, the scientific community is warning the world of impending
disaster due to global warming. We can find thousands upon thousands of
peer reviewed journal references in which those warnings are written.
Global Warming @ARMY.com
Well Done wrote:
> "H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote:
> >OOOOOHHHH The PEER-REVIEWED NEWZWEEK Magazine said THAT!!!
> >They did
> >mention three scientists, sort of, about one sentence each, which could
> >be exaggerated to fit the premise that NEWZ-WEAK was selkling at the
> >moment. Got PEER-REVIEWED citations?
> >
> The fact is, the same ilk now assuring us that Global Warming is
> Anthropogenic were a few years ago predicting an Anthropogenic ice
> age. You don't know that, do you? How stupid to claim this was just
> the statement from a magazine. What an idiot you are.
>
> >You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
> >ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation,
> <snip>
> Good lord, you're a twit.
Scofflaws think that anybody who obeys the law is a twit. They have
been hanging around ORGANIZED CRIME characters who have been getting
away with fraud for so long that they think laws are for breaking with
impunity.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
Jim McGinn
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
> today, the scientific community is warning the world of impending
> disaster due to global warming. We can find thousands upon thousands of
> peer reviewed journal references in which those warnings are written.
It's unfortunate that not a one of them can claim to have evidence of
impending catastrophic global warming with anything remotely resembling a
reasonable degree of confidence.
Scott Nudds
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
> > today, the scientific community is warning the world of impending
> > disaster due to global warming. We can find thousands upon thousands of
> > peer reviewed journal references in which those warnings are written.
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> It's unfortunate that not a one of them can claim to have evidence of
> impending catastrophic global warming with anything remotely resembling a
> reasonable degree of confidence.
In fact they all do. If they didn't the articles would not pass the peer
review process where other scientists check their facts and calculations and
deem what is and is not fit to print.
Stupid... Stupid... Jim McGinn
Jim McGinn
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
news:xYnYf.27140$Hk1...@read1.cgocable.net...
>
>> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
>> > today, the scientific community is warning the world of impending
>> > disaster due to global warming. We can find thousands upon thousands
>> > of
>> > peer reviewed journal references in which those warnings are written.
>
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> It's unfortunate that not a one of them can claim to have evidence of
>> impending catastrophic global warming with anything remotely resembling a
>> reasonable degree of confidence.
>
> In fact they all do.
Name one.
Jim
Alohacyberian
news:1144060378....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
findings and opinions of those who pooh-pooh global warming, especially
since they are far more credible in that specific field of study than are
the alarmists who have the ear of the elite mainstream media and politicians
who are purveyors of scare-tactics and pessimistic propaganda. I hope you
do recall not too many years ago, when the global warming conference in
Boston was cancelled because the weather was too cold and keynote speaker,
John Kerry, no doubt a learned scholar of global warming, didn't get his
chance to tell the delegation that the phenomenon was caused by the
Republicans in general and the Bush Administration in particular! Ya gotta
love it! KM
Alohacyberian
news:0agYf.55151$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> "JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote
>> You should have continued with the article,
>
> I read it all.
>
>> occurred decades ago.
>
> The fact is that there is no reliable evidence for catastrophic AGW. It's
> speculation based on conjecture based on uncertainty.
>
> Jim
It's speculation based on conjecture based on uncertainty and predicated on
partisan alarmism. It's political, not scientific as were the previous
scare-tactics. KM
Alohacyberian
news:e0rdds$m0i$2...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Ii6Yf.55147$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>>It's the same old scare-tactic sort of thing which makes doomsday
>>predictions in the vain hope the populace will put all their trust in
>>government and cede all their power to Big Brother. When it didn't work,
>>they switched to global warming, partly in a silly attempt to bankrupt one
>>of the inventors of a chlorofluorocarbons used in aerosol spray cans and
>>who
>>was a major contributor to the Nixon presidential campaign and it was
>>feared
>>would do the same for Ronald Reagan and other prominent Republicans. Of
>>course he was already a multi-millionaire, so taking chlorofluorocarbons
>>off
>>the American market didn't hurt him even a little bit, nor do those and
>>other chlorofluorocarbons like freon hurt the ozone layer even a little
>>bit.
>
> You are a liar.
>
of course you neglected to post any evidence to support your knee-jerk. KM
"Liberals' other new hobby is to call people 'liars'. After years of
defending Clinton, they love the piquant irony of calling Bush a 'liar'.
'_Bush said he was a "reformer with results" -- LIAR!' For fifty years
liberals have called Republicans every name in the book--idiots, fascists,
anti-Semites, racists, crooks, Constitution shredders, and masterminds of
Salvadoran death squads. Only recently have they added the epithet, 'liar".
Even noted ethicist Al Franken has switched from calling conservatives 'big
fat idiots' to calling them 'liars'. This is virgin territory for
Democrats--they never before viewed lying as a negative. The past president,
Bill Clinton, was called "an unusually good liar" by a senator in his own
party, and their last vice president, Al Gore, couldn't say 'pass the salt'
without claiming to have invented salt. Having only recently discovered the
intriguing new concept of 'lies', the Democrats are having a jolly old time
calling Bush a liar. But, they can't quite grasp the concept of a lie as
connoting something that is intentionally untrue--or untrue at all."
~ Ann Coulter
Alohacyberian
news:Xns979ACDA8CB...@38.119.97.2...
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:4cgYf.55153$F_3.23131
> @newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
>>> Ho, humm.... It's been almost 16 years and these dullards still can't
>>> manage to find three references to scientific journals in which
>>> climatologists warned of an imminent onset of an ice age.
>>
>> Are you suggesting these periodicals were lieing?
>
> trying to make a buck selling filler pieces. Let's see the WHOLE article
> and the byline, not a cherry picked line or two from something 25 years
> out
> of date. Go to the scientific literature and not "Science Digest" which is
> the equivalent of Readers Digest. That's like having your doctor read up
> on
> the latest medical procedure in USA Today instead of the New England
> Journal of Medicine.
>
Yes, the above columnists, freelancers and stringers you reference are
journalists, not scientists and if paid sufficiently, will write
"scientific" articles fed to them by partisans and politicians. KM
Nosmo King
news:EspYf.58854$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "Nosmo King" <Marl...@WinstonSalme.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns979ACDA8CB...@38.119.97.2...
>> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:4cgYf.55153$F_3.23131 @newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>>> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
>>>> Ho, humm.... It's been almost 16 years and these dullards still
>>>> can't
>>>> manage to find three references to scientific journals in which
>>>> climatologists warned of an imminent onset of an ice age.
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting these periodicals were lieing?
>>
>> Not scientific magazines, just articles written by columnists or
>> stringers trying to make a buck selling filler pieces. Let's see the
>> WHOLE article and the byline, not a cherry picked line or two from
>> something 25 years out
>> of date. Go to the scientific literature and not "Science Digest"
>> which is the equivalent of Readers Digest. That's like having your
>> doctor read up on
>> the latest medical procedure in USA Today instead of the New England
>> Journal of Medicine.
>>
>
> Yes, the above columnists, freelancers and stringers you reference are
> journalists, not scientists and if paid sufficiently, will write
> "scientific" articles fed to them by partisans and politicians. KM
Like the Bush administration feeds journalists their propaganda, right?
That's why you go to the scientists who are actually doing the research
independent of outside influence.
Arbusto Harken
Citing Ann Coulter? Any credibility you may have had is now officially
down the toilet. Buh-bye. Better luck next time.
--
"I'm going to announce tomorrow that I'm not running for reelection and
that I'm going to leave Congress."
- Tom DeLay 4/3/06
beav
wrote:
>Hay, shit for brains. Chloroflurocarbons are not the principle cause of
>Global Warming. They are the principle cause of Ozone depletion.
>
>You are confusing Ozone depletion with Global warming.
>
>Can you possibly be more stupid?
>
>I don't think so.
ummmm, CFC's are powerful GW enhancers too, in addition to their
longevity in the atmosphere. Their most dire effect is ozone
depletion.
now go and be nice and apologize to Mr Alohacyberian.
>
>
>
>
>"Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message news:Ii6Yf.55147>
>It's the same old scare-tactic sort of thing which makes doomsday
>> predictions in the vain hope the populace will put all their trust in
>> government and cede all their power to Big Brother. When it didn't work,
>> they switched to global warming, partly in a silly attempt to bankrupt one
>> of the inventors of a chlorofluorocarbons used in aerosol spray cans and
>who
>> was a major contributor to the Nixon presidential campaign and it was
>feared
>> would do the same for Ronald Reagan and other prominent Republicans. Of
>> course he was already a multi-millionaire, so taking chlorofluorocarbons
>off
>> the American market didn't hurt him even a little bit, nor do those and
>> other chlorofluorocarbons like freon hurt the ozone layer even a little
>bit.
>> One of the reasons the ban on chlorofluorocarbons didn't hurt him
>> financially is that the group of "environmentalists" and politicians who
>set
>> the standards agreed to allow an increase of 15% of the amount of
>> chlorofluorocarbons in use in third world countries. Astonishing logic:
>> the use of Chlorofluorocarbons in developed countries is damaging the
>ozone
>> layer and causing global warming; however, the use of Chlorofluorocarbons
>> in developed countries is not damaging the ozone layer and not causing
>> global warming. the But, it does show how easily radical
>environmentalists
>> are lead around by partisan politicians. Anyway, you're supposed to get
>all
>> hysterical and melodramatic about global warming and let the "experts" in
>> government make your decisions for you. And naturally there have been a
>> plethora of scientists who have pooh-poohed the global warming warnings,
>> but, the elite mainstream media is loathe to report it. KM
Lloyd Parker
Well Done <Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote:
>"H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote:
>>OOOOOHHHH The PEER-REVIEWED NEWZWEEK Magazine said THAT!!!
>>They did
>>mention three scientists, sort of, about one sentence each, which could
>>be exaggerated to fit the premise that NEWZ-WEAK was selkling at the
>>moment. Got PEER-REVIEWED citations?
>>
>The fact is, the same ilk now assuring us that Global Warming is
>Anthropogenic were a few years ago predicting an Anthropogenic ice
>age.
Big fat lie. Go to realclimte.org and read, stupid.
James
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
news:xYnYf.27140$Hk1...@read1.cgocable.net...
>
John Black
jimm...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> "Nosmo King" <Marl...@WinstonSalme.com> wrote
>
> > Go to the scientific literature and not "Science Digest"
>
> I have gone to the scientific literature. My goal was to find the smoking
> gun of catastrophic AGW. What I found is that the catastrophic aspects of
> AGW exist only in the models--not that there's necessarily anything wrong
> with that. My next step was to determine what level of confidence I can put
> on these model results. And it seems I've run into a brick wall. Nobody
> seems to be able to provide anything substantive as to what degree of
> confidence should reasonably be attributed to the computer models that
> indicate catastrophic AGW. What I am finding can best be described as a
> bait and switch routine. I now realize that if you ask a GW alarmist about
> the confidence level of the models that they will respond with information
> about validating the underlying assumption of climate theory, or they will
> respond in an attempt to assure me that we can trust the scientists, or they
> will respond with an explanation about advances in our understanding of
> theory, or they will respond with a discussion of doomsday scenarios,
"we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public
imagination. That of course means getting loads of media coverage. So we
have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic
statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us
has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and
being honest."
-- Stephen H. Schneider, Climatologist and author of the book Global
Warming
John Black
Global Warming @ARMY.com
James wrote:
nothing
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
Sport Pilot
>global average warming to date, if the irresponsible press had not
>deliberately produced anxiety by pointing it out.
How would they have not noticed? I mean the sky is falling is it not?
Arbusto Harken
Do you believe this quote is accurate or could it have been manipulated?
Jim McGinn
Lloyd Parker
Lloyd Parker
"Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:0agYf.55151$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> "JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote
>>> You should have continued with the article,
>>
>> I read it all.
>>
> >> There is no comparisson to the idle speculation about cooling that
>>> occurred decades ago.
>>
>> The fact is that there is no reliable evidence for catastrophic AGW. It's
>> speculation based on conjecture based on uncertainty.
>>
>> Jim
>
>It's speculation based on conjecture based on uncertainty and predicated on
>partisan alarmism. It's political, not scientific as were the previous
>scare-tactics. KM
A see a new idiot has reared his head.
Lloyd Parker
"Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>"JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
>news:1144060378....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> You should have continued with the article, because in it Will clearly
>> demonstrates what is different between the 1970s cooling talk and
>> today's scientific consensus on global warming. Back then talk of
>> cooling was from a few scientists and a few periodicals. Now, global
>> warming is supported by a consensus of scientific opinion and research.
>> There is no comparisson to the idle speculation about cooling that
>> occurred decades ago.
>>
>Uh-huh. The fact that the elite mainstream media refuses to report the
>findings and opinions of those who pooh-pooh global warming,
Idiot alert!
>especially
>since they are far more credible in that specific field of study than are
>the alarmists who have the ear of the elite mainstream media and politicians
>who are purveyors of scare-tactics and pessimistic propaganda.
IPCC. National Academy of Sciences. NASA. EPA. NOAA.
> I hope you
>do recall not too many years ago, when the global warming conference in
>Boston was cancelled because the weather was too cold and keynote speaker,
>John Kerry, no doubt a learned scholar of global warming, didn't get his
>chance to tell the delegation that the phenomenon was caused by the
>Republicans in general and the Bush Administration in particular! Ya gotta
>love it! KM
You gotta be an idiot.
Lloyd Parker
"Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>news:e0rdds$m0i$2...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Ii6Yf.55147$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> "Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>>>It's the same old scare-tactic sort of thing which makes doomsday
>>>predictions in the vain hope the populace will put all their trust in
>>>government and cede all their power to Big Brother. When it didn't work,
>>>they switched to global warming, partly in a silly attempt to bankrupt one
>>>of the inventors of a chlorofluorocarbons used in aerosol spray cans and
>>>who
>>>was a major contributor to the Nixon presidential campaign and it was
>>>feared
>>>would do the same for Ronald Reagan and other prominent Republicans. Of
>>>course he was already a multi-millionaire, so taking chlorofluorocarbons
>>>off
>>>the American market didn't hurt him even a little bit, nor do those and
>>>other chlorofluorocarbons like freon hurt the ozone layer even a little
>>>bit.
>>
>> You are a liar.
>>
>Now there is a convincing argument for intellectual blank cartridges, but,
>of course you neglected to post any evidence to support your knee-jerk. KM
>
Hey, he lied. I called him on it.
Anybody who says that CFCs don't damage the ozone layer is either as dumb as a
fence post or a liar.
>"Liberals' other new hobby is to call people 'liars'.
Then don't lie.
>After years of
>defending Clinton, they love the piquant irony of calling Bush a 'liar'.
Yeah, all those WMD. All those people greeting us as liberators. Iraqi oil
paying for everything. No lies there!
>'_Bush said he was a "reformer with results" -- LIAR!' For fifty years
>liberals have called Republicans every name in the book--idiots, fascists,
>anti-Semites, racists, crooks, Constitution shredders, and masterminds of
>Salvadoran death squads. Only recently have they added the epithet, 'liar".
>Even noted ethicist Al Franken has switched from calling conservatives 'big
>fat idiots' to calling them 'liars'. This is virgin territory for
>Democrats--they never before viewed lying as a negative. The past president,
>Bill Clinton, was called "an unusually good liar" by a senator in his own
>party, and their last vice president, Al Gore, couldn't say 'pass the salt'
>without claiming to have invented salt. Having only recently discovered the
>intriguing new concept of 'lies', the Democrats are having a jolly old time
>calling Bush a liar. But, they can't quite grasp the concept of a lie as
>connoting something that is intentionally untrue--or untrue at all."
> ~ Ann Coulter
"Kill all the liberals." "Invade Moslem lands and convert them to
Christianity or kill them."
2 more quotes by Ann
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Excellent. And true.
>
> Jim
Richard G
will to late for anyone to do anything about it. And if you don’t believe it
then explain why the poles are melting more and more each year. I’ve been
there have you.
RG.
>
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:e0uh7j$6jn$6...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
Nosmo King
news:MPG.1e9c79b6...@news.chi.sbcglobal.net:
Of course, if you take the whole statement, instead of what you posted
out of context, it makes a lot more sense. But then you have an agenda.
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific
method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the
caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just
scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to
see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our
working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To
do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's
imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So
we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This
'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by
any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between
being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted
in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989, see also American Physical Society,
APS News August/September 1996.
Nosmo King
news:1144180409.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
The entire quote in context. Makes more sense when you look at it this
way:
Arbusto Harken
or not he thinks the quote is accurate, he'll be forced to reveal
himself as either: A) gullible for believing the quote is authentic, or
B) dishonest for posting a quote he knows to be altered.
--
"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em."
- Kenny Rogers
Alohacyberian
news:1144148372.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Citing Ann Coulter? Any credibility you may have had is now officially
> down the toilet. Buh-bye. Better luck next time.
>
Yup. Much better to attack the message than make an effort to refute a
message when its obvious you have no rebuttal. Such tactics have been
hurting Leftwing Liberal candidates for about 25 years now, so by all means,
keep up the good work! Your adversaries count on it! KM
Alohacyberian
> In article <DspYf.58853$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:e0rdds$m0i$2...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>Now there is a convincing argument for intellectual blank cartridges, but,
>>of course you neglected to post any evidence to support your knee-jerk.
>>KM
>
> Hey, he lied. I called him on it.
>
How terribly impressive that you engaged in a Leftwing Liberal tactic that
is a dead giveaway to the fact you couldn't intelligently counter his
argument. So what else is new? KM
Alohacyberian
propaganda to the elite mainstream media who hate his guts and will do
anything to slander him, but, I've never seen any evidence that the Bush
Administration is as overwrought about global warming as the handwringers in
the elite Leftwing are. KM
Alohacyberian
Because God knows, if it's on the Internet, it's gospel truth! LOL! I just
read on the Internet that the world is flat, so it must be true! In a
generation past, intellectual blank cartridges insisted that because
something was on the TeeVee it, therefore had to be factual, and the next
generation of dolts insists that because it's on the 'Net it's gotta be
true! KM
Alohacyberian
news:1144178675.7...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
elite mainstream media refuses to report that the earth goes through cycles
of warm temperatures followed by cycles of cooler temperatures indicates
that they do prefer scare-tactics to honest reporting. KM
Arbusto Harken
Alohacyberian wrote:
> "Arbusto Harken" <arbusto...@usa.com> wrote in message
> news:1144148372.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Citing Ann Coulter? Any credibility you may have had is now officially
> > down the toilet. Buh-bye. Better luck next time.
> >
>
> Yup. Much better to attack the message than make an effort to refute a
> message when its obvious you have no rebuttal.
Could you repeat that in english please?
--
"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in
torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly
throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."
- Ann Coulter
Nosmo King
news:OdNYf.62242$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Oh, give the MSM a break. A lot of people hate Georgie's guts. And of
course the Bushies are not overwrought about GW simply because the
evidence for it hurts the oil business and we don't want to do anything
to take away from their bottom line, do we? You sound like you're a
propadandist for Big Oil, who, I might add, would be considered among the
elite of the Rightwing, wouldn't you say?
z
Jim McGinn wrote:
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
>
> > today, the scientific community is warning the world of impending
> > disaster due to global warming. We can find thousands upon thousands of
> > peer reviewed journal references in which those warnings are written.
>
> It's unfortunate that not a one of them can claim to have evidence of
> impending catastrophic global warming with anything remotely resembling a
> reasonable degree of confidence.
For the AOGCM experiments, the mean change and the range in global
average surface air temperature (SAT) for the 1961 to 1990 average to
the mid-21st century (2021 to 2050) for IS92a is +1.3°C with a range
from +0.8 to +1.7°C for greenhouse gas plus sulphates (GS) as opposed
to +1.6°C with a range from +1.0 to +2.1°C for greenhouse gas only
(G). For SRES A2 the mean is +1.1°C with a range from +0.5 to +1.4°C,
and for B2, the mean is +1.2°C with a range from +0.5 to +1.7°C.
For the end of the 21st century (2071 to 2100), for the draft SRES
marker scenario A2, the global average SAT change from AOGCMs compared
with 1961 to 1990 is +3.0°C and the range is +1.3 to +4.5°C, and for
B2 the mean SAT change is +2.2°C and the range is +0.9 to +3.4°C.
AOGCMs can only be integrated for a limited number of scenarios due to
computational expense. Therefore, a simple climate model is used here
for the projections of climate change for the next century. The simple
model is tuned to simulate the response found in several of the AOGCMs
used here. The forcings for the simple model are based on the radiative
forcing estimates from Chapter 6, and are slightly different to the
forcings used by the AOGCMs. The indirect aerosol forcing is scaled
assuming a value of -0.8 Wm-2 for 1990. Using the IS92 scenarios, the
SAR gives a range for the global mean temperature change for 2100,
relative to 1990, of +1 to +3.5°C. The estimated range for the six
final illustrative SRES scenarios using updated methods is +1.4 to
+5.6°C. The range for the full set of SRES scenarios is +1.4 to
+5.8°C.
Lloyd Parker
"Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>"Arbusto Harken" <arbusto...@usa.com> wrote in message
>news:1144148372.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Citing Ann Coulter? Any credibility you may have had is now officially
>> down the toilet. Buh-bye. Better luck next time.
>>
>
>Yup. Much better to attack the message than make an effort to refute a
>message when its obvious you have no rebuttal.
I don't bother refuting fools, creationists, or liars. Ann is all 3.
Lloyd Parker
"Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>news:e0uhhe$6jn$1...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <DspYf.58853$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> "Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>>>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:e0rdds$m0i$2...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>>>>
>>>> You are a liar.
>>>>
>>>Now there is a convincing argument for intellectual blank cartridges, but,
>>>of course you neglected to post any evidence to support your knee-jerk.
>>>KM
>>
>> Hey, he lied. I called him on it.
>>
>
>How terribly impressive that you engaged in a Leftwing Liberal tactic that
>is a dead giveaway to the fact you couldn't intelligently counter his
>argument. So what else is new? KM
Lloyd Parker
"Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>news:e0u489$ocf$8...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>>
>> Big fat lie. Go to realclimte.org and read, stupid.
>>
>
>Because God knows, if it's on the Internet, it's gospel truth! LOL!
But I bet you lap up what cato, co2science, etc., post.
Lloyd Parker
"Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote in message
>news:1144178675.7...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >George Will argues now that no one would have noticed the 0.6 deg. C of
>>>global average warming to date, if the irresponsible press had not
>>>deliberately produced anxiety by pointing it out.
>>
>> How would they have not noticed? I mean the sky is falling is it not?
>>
>Well, of course it's falling, anyone can see that. And the fact that the
>elite mainstream media refuses to report that the earth goes through cycles
>of warm temperatures followed by cycles of cooler temperatures indicates
>that they do prefer scare-tactics to honest reporting. KM
z
The irony is that there are fortunes large and small to be made in the
coming energy revolution, much as in the information revolution of the
last few decades. Somewhere out there, some energy-related company that
will become the next Microsoft is starting up in somebody's basement,
and this administration is dead set that that basement be in China or
India rather than the US.
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
> In all of human history, the earth has not warmed this much or this fast.
This assumptions is base on ignorance, not data.
Nosmo King
>
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
>
>> today, the scientific community is warning the world of impending
>> disaster due to global warming. We can find thousands upon thousands
>> of peer reviewed journal references in which those warnings are
>> written.
>
> It's unfortunate that not a one of them can claim to have evidence of
> impending catastrophic global warming with anything remotely
> resembling a reasonable degree of confidence.
>
>
And how many of these have you looked at? Please cite some references that
we can all look at to see from where you have drawn this conclusion. I
might direct you to the Scientific American website where, for a fee, you
can read a hundred or more papers and letters to the editor on the subject.
Scientific American is one of the oldest and most respected publications in
the field of scientific information.
Jim McGinn
"Nosmo King" <Marl...@WinstonSalme.com> wrote in message
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:a3nYf.55243$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>
>>
>> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
>>
>>> today, the scientific community is warning the world of impending
>>> disaster due to global warming. We can find thousands upon thousands
>>> of peer reviewed journal references in which those warnings are
>>> written.
>>
>> It's unfortunate that not a one of them can claim to have evidence of
>> impending catastrophic global warming with anything remotely
>> resembling a reasonable degree of confidence.
>
> And how many of these have you looked at? Please cite some references that
> we can all look at to see from where you have drawn this conclusion. I
> might direct you to the Scientific American website where, for a fee, you
> can read a hundred or more papers and letters to the editor on the
> subject.
> Scientific American is one of the oldest and most respected publications
> in
> the field of scientific information.
So let me get this straight, you are, essentially, admitting that out of
these hundreds of papers you are not aware of even one of them that has
evidence of impending catastrophic global warming with anything remotely
resembling a reasonable degree of confidence. Right?
Jim
Jim McGinn
"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1144248084.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Jim McGinn wrote:
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
>
> > today, the scientific community is warning the world of impending
> > disaster due to global warming. We can find thousands upon thousands of
> > peer reviewed journal references in which those warnings are written.
>
> It's unfortunate that not a one of them can claim to have evidence of
> impending catastrophic global warming with anything remotely resembling a
> reasonable degree of confidence.
I appreciate your efforts, but it doesn't seem like you understood my
question. I'm asking about confidence, not range.
John Black
arbusto...@usa.com says...
The quote is both authentic and unaltered. I didn't quote the whole
thing to emphasize the important points. I'll attempt to break it down
further for you:
1) we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
2) Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being
effective and being honest.
It doesn't "make more sense" (LOL!) to see that he then says "I hope
that means being both." because that is just what he hopes, not what he
says "we have to" do even if it means being dishonest. So much for your
"ace in the hole". Quite funny.
John Black
Sport Pilot
> 2) Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being
> effective and being honest.
>
> It doesn't "make more sense" (LOL!) to see that he then says "I hope
> that means being both." because that is just what he hopes, not what he
> says "we have to" do even if it means being dishonest. So much for your
> "ace in the hole". Quite funny.
>
LOL! Yeah lying to the public and starting a pandemic of bad science
is sooooo funney!
> John Black
Sport Pilot
> effective and being honest.
>
> that means being both." because that is just what he hopes, not what he
> says "we have to" do even if it means being dishonest. So much for your
> "ace in the hole". Quite funny.
>
LOL! Yeah lying to the public and starting a pandemic of bad science
Arbusto Harken
Funney? Let us see what Dr. Schneider has to say about the "quote"
shall we?
"Vested interests have repeatedly claimed I advocate exaggerating
threats. Their 'evidence' comes from partially quoting my Discover
interview, almost always -like Simon - omitting the last line and the
phrase 'double ethical bind.' They also omit my solutions to the double
ethical bind: (1) use metaphors that succinctly convey both urgency and
uncertainty (pg. xi of Ref. 3) and (2) produce an inventory of written
products from editorials to articles to books, so that those who want
to know more about an author's views on both the caveats and the risks
have a hierarchy of detailed written sources to which they can
turn.3,4,5 What I was telling the Discover interviewer, of course, was
my disdain for a soundbite-communications process that imposes the
double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular media. To twist
my openly stated and serious objections to the soundbite process into
some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a clear distortion. Moreover,
not only do I disapprove of the 'ends justify the means' philosophy of
which I am accused, but, in fact have actively campaigned against it in
myriad speeches and writings. Instead, I repeatedly advocate that
scientists explicitly warn their audiences that 'what to do' is a value
choice as opposed to 'what can happen' and 'what are the odds,' which
are scientific issues (e.g. p.213 of Ref. 3). I also urge that
scientists, when they offer probabilities, work hard to distinguish
which are objective and which are subjective, as well as what is the
scientific basis for any probability offered. For such reasons I was
honored to receive, in 1991, the AAAS/Westinghouse Award for the Public
Understanding of Science."
- Dr. Stephen H. Schneider
Sooooo funney.
Arbusto Harken
Sorry, but that's bullshit.
> I didn't quote the whole
> thing to emphasize the important points.
You "didn't quote the whole thing" because you either don't know "the
whole thing" or because you're being dishonest.
> I'll attempt to break it down
> further for you:
You mean distort it further.
>
> 1) we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
> statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
>
> 2) Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being
> effective and being honest.
>
> It doesn't "make more sense" (LOL!) to see that he then says "I hope
> that means being both." because that is just what he hopes, not what he
> says "we have to" do even if it means being dishonest. So much for your
> "ace in the hole". Quite funny.
>
> John Black
In case you're interested in the truth (which is doubtful) -
APS News Online August/September 1996 Edition
Don't Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial
by Stephen H. Schneider, Prof., Dept. of Biological Sciences and Sr.
Fellow Inst. for International Studies, Stanford University
Editor's note: Professor Schneider was offered space to express his
views following the publication of an erroneous quote attributed to him
in the March issue. The opinions expressed are the author's and not
necessarily those of the APS, its elected officers or staff.
Perhaps you shouldn't believe me, at least that is what Julian Simon's
characterization of my views of environmental threats would lead you to
believe in APS News Back Page article (March 1996, pg. 12). Simon
"quotes" me directly, as supposedly saying "Scientists should consider
stretching the truth..." to get good publicity for their cause. After
the March issue was in print, Simon notified the editor that this false
and very damaging statement was incorrect. What he hasn't yet admitted
is that even what he states to be the "correct quote" is still an
out-of-context misrepresentation of my views, a distortion he persists
in perpetuating even months after I personally told him of the context
of the original quote.
The Simon APS News article offers to bet environmentalists "...that any
trend in material human welfare will improve rather than get worse."
This article echoes an editorial essay entitled "Earth's Doomsayers Are
Wrong" that appeared in the 12 May 1995 San Francisco Chronicle open
forum. Simon then said that "Every measure of material and
environmental welfare in the U.S. and the world has improved..." and
that "All long run trends point in exactly the opposite direction of
the doomsayers" Thus he implied that few, if any people would likely
accept his bet since for the past 25 years the pessimists have been
"proven entirely wrong." When my Stanford colleague, Paul Ehrlich, and
I took up his challenge1 and named 15 environment-related trends we
were willing to bet would deteriorate, Simon refused claiming to the
Chronicle (18 May 1995) that "I do not offer to bet on the progress of
particular physical conditions such as the ozone layer" (as if its
decline were not a negative measure of environmental welfare!).
In November, 1995, I debated Simon on Lateline, the Australian TV
equivalent of the US Nightline program, on the issue of the Chronicle
bet. In a segment they did not air, Simon charged that I advocate
exaggerating science to enhance the appearance of environmental
threats. To bolster this charge he resurrected an oft-quoted, but
usually out of context partial quote, from a Discover Magazine
interview2 in 1989 in which I decried soundbite science and journalism
by pointing out that nobody gets enough time in the media either to
cover all the caveats in depth, (i.e., "being honest") or to present
all the plausible threats (i.e., "being effective"). During the TV
debate, months before Simon's APS News article appeared, I pointed out
that he was taking only part of the full quote and that part was
seriously out of context - this is the same source he "quoted" in APS
News. The full quote follows, where I have italicized what portions of
it Simon quoted and bracketed what I did not say but he attributed to
me in the APS News article:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the
scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the
doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are
not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd
like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates
into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic
change. To do that we need [Scientists should consider stretching the
truth] to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's
imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage.
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This
'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved
by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is
between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being
both."2
Vested interests have repeatedly claimed I advocate exaggerating
threats. Their "evidence" comes from partially quoting my Discover
interview, almost always -like Simon - omitting the last line and the
phrase "double ethical bind." They also omit my solutions to the double
ethical bind: (1) use metaphors that succinctly convey both urgency and
uncertainty (pg. xi of Ref. 3) and (2) produce an inventory of written
products from editorials to articles to books, so that those who want
to know more about an author's views on both the caveats and the risks
have a hierarchy of detailed written sources to which they can
turn.3,4,5 What I was telling the Discover interviewer, of course, was
my disdain for a soundbite-communications process that imposes the
double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular media. To twist
my openly stated and serious objections to the soundbite process into
some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a clear distortion. Moreover,
not only do I disapprove of the "ends justify the means" philosophy of
which I am accused, but, in fact have actively campaigned against it in
myriad speeches and writings. Instead, I repeatedly advocate that
scientists explicitly warn their audiences that "what to do" is a value
choice as opposed to "what can happen" and "what are the odds," which
are scientific issues (e.g. p. 213 of Ref. 3). I also urge that
scientists, when they offer probabilities, work hard to distinguish
which are objective and which are subjective, as well as what is the
scientific basis for any probability offered. For such reasons I was
honored to receive, in 1991, the AAAS/Westinghouse Award for the Public
Understanding of Science.
If the readers of APS News are confused by all this rancor and want a
fair and balanced treatment of environmental scientific and policy
debates, they can turn to the several National Research Council or IPCC
assessments,6 in which words like "any," "all," "every," and "entirely"
are scarce, and citations are quoted or paraphrased in their proper
context.
References
1. P.R. Ehrlich and S. H. Schneider, Environmental Awareness, 18 (2)
pp. 47-50. (1995).
2. J. Schell, Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989.
3. S.H. Schneider, Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse
Century? (Vintage 1990).
4. S.H. Schneider, with L.E. Mesirow, The Genesis Strategy: Climate and
Global Survival. (Plenum NY 1976).
5. S.H. Schneider, National Geographic Research & Exploration 9 (2),
173-190 (1993).
6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC), Climate Change
1995. The Science of Climate Change. Edited by J.T. Houghton etal.
(Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996).
_________________________________________________________________
Copyright 1996, The American Physical Society.
The APS encourages the redistribution of the materials included in this
newsletter provided that attribution to the source is noted, the
materials are not truncated or changed.
Sport Pilot
LOL! Double ethical bind, right after saying they needed to lie and
lie often. It really is so very funnny!
Arbusto Harken
Funnny? He didn't say anybody needed to lie. You never read the
entire interview. But you really don't need to since all your
concerned with is dishonest rhetoric. We all know what the truth is
concerning this 16-year-old "quote". The fact that you have to trump
it up and ignore the truth is very telling. You can't support your
argument honestly. Very funnny indeed.
--
President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President
Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader
scale.
-Alberto Gonzales
H2-PV NOW
Alohacyberian wrote:
> > You are a liar.
> "Liberals' other new hobby is to call people 'liars'. After years of
> defending Clinton, they love the piquant irony of calling Bush a 'liar'.
> '_Bush said he was a "reformer with results" -- LIAR!' For fifty years
> liberals have called Republicans every name in the book--idiots, fascists,
> anti-Semites, racists, crooks, Constitution shredders, and masterminds of
> Salvadoran death squads. Only recently have they added the epithet, 'liar".
> Even noted ethicist Al Franken has switched from calling conservatives 'big
> fat idiots' to calling them 'liars'. This is virgin territory for
> Democrats--they never before viewed lying as a negative. The past president,
> Bill Clinton, was called "an unusually good liar" by a senator in his own
> party, and their last vice president, Al Gore, couldn't say 'pass the salt'
> without claiming to have invented salt. Having only recently discovered the
> intriguing new concept of 'lies', the Democrats are having a jolly old time
> calling Bush a liar. But, they can't quite grasp the concept of a lie as
> connoting something that is intentionally untrue--or untrue at all."
> ~ Ann Coulter
Jim McGinn begin to spin the mortal sin of lies wear thin, his din of
has been tactics herein a siamese twin of crooks, kissing kin of
pigskin, gets his foreskin pinned in a tailspin to his chagrin. He'll
never win, sad, play the violin, he cops it on the chin.
Sparky @zig-zag.net wrote:
> http://snipurl.com/opq6
> Google Results "Jim McGinn" arrest warrant issued.
> http://snipurl.com/oppy
> Google Results: "Jim McGinn" arrested for fraud.
> Does anybody know if this is the same McGinn that used to post on
> sci.environment? I always knew he would turn up bad in the end, all his
> association with organized crime figures.
> http://snipurl.com/opqb
> Google Results "Jim McGinn" connected to organized crime.
It looks like there are reports that Jim McGinn has been arrested for
fraud.
http://snipurl.com/oqp1
Google Results for "Jim McGinn" arrested for fraud
I looked up some other keywords on a hunch based on his displayed
morality. This is what I found...
http://snipurl.com/oqpb
Results for "Jim McGinn" arrest child pornography.
http://snipurl.com/oqph
Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR "Koch-Sucker"
http://snipurl.com/oqpk
Results about 23 for "Jim McGinn" AND Organized Crime.
http://snipurl.com/oqpp
Results for "Jim McGinn" Accomplice to Crime.
Nosmo King
You do know that we are wasting our time with a couple of scientific
Illiterates, don't you? These are the same guys who would lock up
Gallileo for heresy and insist that the evidence for the flatness of the
earth was right there before your eyes. "Why, we'd fall off if the world
was round!"
Nosmo King
Wrong
Sport Pilot
is between being
effective and being honest."
So he said you have to be dishonest to be effective. That is the truth
won't work, but a lie will.
Sport Pilot
Alohacyberian
> In article <MdNYf.62240$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>>"Arbusto Harken" <arbusto...@usa.com> wrote in message
>>news:1144148372.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Citing Ann Coulter? Any credibility you may have had is now officially
>>> down the toilet. Buh-bye. Better luck next time.
>>
>>message when its obvious you have no rebuttal.
>
> I don't bother refuting fools, creationists, or liars. Ann is all 3.
>
In other words you lack the capacity to refute them! LOL! You should be
such a fool. Ann Coulter is almost a household word and who ever heard of
Lloyd Parker? Hilarious! KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI or
CNN, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards & 150 foreign languages
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
Alohacyberian
don't you try, you advertise the fact! That's part of the reason your
candidates have fared so poorly lo' these many years! KM
Alohacyberian
> "Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
> news:OdNYf.62242$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>> "Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
>>> news:EspYf.58854$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>>> are journalists, not scientists and if paid sufficiently, will write
>>>> "scientific" articles fed to them by partisans and politicians. KM
>>>
>>> Like the Bush administration feeds journalists their propaganda,
>>> right?
>>>
>> Well I don't know how successful the Bush Administration would be at
>> feeding propaganda to the elite mainstream media who hate his guts and
>> will do anything to slander him, but, I've never seen any evidence
>> that the Bush Administration is as overwrought about global warming as
>> the handwringers in the elite Leftwing are. KM
>
> Oh, give the MSM a break. A lot of people hate Georgie's guts. And of
> course the Bushies are not overwrought about GW simply because the
> evidence for it hurts the oil business and we don't want to do anything
> to take away from their bottom line, do we? You sound like you're a
> propadandist for Big Oil, who, I might add, would be considered among the
> elite of the Rightwing, wouldn't you say?
>
Elite of the rightwing? That's hilarious! I don't have much to say about
"Big Oil" one way or the other. Let's see now, I not only believe in
abortion on demand, I don't believe that the government should ever
intervene into medical procedures which should be strictly between women and
their healthcare professionals. Is that what the "elite of the rightwing"
teaches? I believe the Electoral College is an anachronism and should be
replaced by the popular vote? Is that what the "elite of the rightwing"
professes? I believe that evolution as started by Charles Darwin has become
incontrovertible fact and should continue to be taught in science classes
and further that "creationism" and "intelligent design" have no place in the
science classroom. Is that what the "elite of the rightwing" promotes?
Obviously you know ever so much more about the "elite of the rightwing" so,
I'll bow to your superior knowledge. Interesting how my words don't mesh
with your elite Leftwing Liberal parroting, so you automatically stereotype
me and put me inside a convenient box that will hopefully keep you from
*shudder* "thinking" when you respond to my comments. But, fear not, I
won't be refuting your words in the future, they're not worth reading.
Buh-by now, Nosmo. KM
Alohacyberian
news:YwSYf.52079$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> "Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>
>> In all of human history, the earth has not warmed this much or this fast.
>
Naw, it's probably based on scare-tactics that the hysterical melodramatic
handwringers hope they can foist onto people as misinformed and disinformed
as they are! ;-) KM
Alohacyberian
> In article <PdNYf.62243$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:e0u489$ocf$8...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>>>
>>> Big fat lie. Go to realclimte.org and read, stupid.
>>
>>Because God knows, if it's on the Internet, it's gospel truth! LOL!
>
> But I bet you lap up what cato, co2science, etc., post.
>
I've never heard of any of the above. But, it's ever so nice of you to
create something out of thin air and falsely attribute it to me. I trust
you get exercise other than jumping to conclusions. KM
Alohacyberian
news:12902-443...@storefull-3115.bay.webtv.net...
> Global warming kooks need to cool off?
> Is that the people that KNOW we will be hit with global warming soon?
> Or is that the very unitelligent idiots that don't want to face it?
>
I hope you have gotten a significant amount of prescriptions for
tranquilizers and hypnotics to see you through this dreadful dilemma. In
the 70s the elite mainstream media warned us of the impending ice age.
Those scare tactics didn't work so now they've switched to global warming as
the latest trendy catastrophe that puppets are supposed to swallow. But,
please do continue to be overwrought about such silliness; in the 1800s
biblical "scholars" warned that the earth would come to an end before the
turn of the century; the religious doomsday peddlers have been replaced by
journalists who cite "scientific evidenced" that Armageddon is indeed around
the corner and civilization as we know it will burn in earth instead of
hell! Do you recall a couple of years ago that the Global Warming
Conference in Boston had to be cancelled because the weather was too cold?
Ya gotta love it! KM
Alohacyberian
news:7MQYf.111$sk4...@fe03.lga...
> Alohacyberian wrote:
>> "Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote in message
>> news:1144178675.7...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>George Will argues now that no one would have noticed the 0.6 deg. C of
>>>>global average warming to date, if the irresponsible press had not
>>>>deliberately produced anxiety by pointing it out.
>>>
>>>How would they have not noticed? I mean the sky is falling is it not?
>>
>> Well, of course it's falling, anyone can see that. And the fact that the
>> elite mainstream media refuses to report that the earth goes through
>> cycles of warm temperatures followed by cycles of cooler temperatures
>> indicates that they do prefer scare-tactics to honest reporting. KM
>
>
Speak for yourself. KM
Alohacyberian
> Alohacyberian wrote:
>> "Arbusto Harken" <arbusto...@usa.com> wrote in message
>> news:1144148372.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Citing Ann Coulter? Any credibility you may have had is now officially
>> > down the toilet. Buh-bye. Better luck next time.
>>
>> message when its obvious you have no rebuttal.
>
>
Sorry, it was a typo, correction above. Another example that "speed kills".
;-) KM
Alohacyberian
> Keith Martin a usenet crackpot wrote:
>> "Arbusto Harken" <arbusto...@usa.com> wrote in message
>> news:1144148372.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>Citing Ann Coulter? Any credibility you may have had is now officially
>>>down the toilet. Buh-bye. Better luck next time.
>>
>> refute a message when its obvious you have no rebuttal. Such tactics
>> have been hurting Leftwing Liberal candidates for about 25 years now, so
>> by all means, keep up the good work! Your adversaries count on it! KM
>
> And we all thought politics was about public service.
>
Who's "we"? That's what you get for thinking when you're not used to it.
Nosmo King
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
You are all such a bunch a lazy ass ignoramoses. McGuin states "It's
unfortunate that not a one of them can claim to have evidence
of impending catastrophic global warming with anything remotely
resembling a reasonable degree of confidence." I retort "And how many of
these have you looked at? Please cite some references......", directing
him to look at the Scientific American articles as a possible source for
him to use since I don't believe he has any himself and is just
blathering. He then asks me to give him the conclusions of all of these
articles, essentially telling me to go back and read them and give him a
book report on what they say. 'Fraid not. That his homework assignment.
I gave the references, told him where to look. I know what they say and
now it's your turn to read them and give your rebuttal. But I'll help you
out a little.
Here's the index page:
http://www.sciam.com/search/index.cfm?QT=Q&SCC=Q&Q=global+warming&x=13&y=
10
Here's the first article:
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?
fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=87AA497D-2B35-221B-
696443DCBCF961FC
Do your homework. The information is out there. Some you may agree with,
some you won't. But until you do a lot more reading and research on your
own, you are a captive of "biased agenda thinking". In the end, if you
want to believe that GW is not real, and that the 6 billion people on the
planet throwing hydrocarbons willy nilly into the atmosphere has no
consequences and no environmental effect, then that's your opinion. Stick
with it, I don't care. But it will not change the hard facts on the
ground.
Mitchell Holman
@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
> news:e10jck$fl0$9...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <MdNYf.62240$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> "Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>>>"Arbusto Harken" <arbusto...@usa.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1144148372.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Citing Ann Coulter? Any credibility you may have had is now
officially
>>>> down the toilet. Buh-bye. Better luck next time.
>>>
>>>Yup. Much better to attack the messagenger than make an effort to
refute
>>>a
>>>message when its obvious you have no rebuttal.
>>
>> I don't bother refuting fools, creationists, or liars. Ann is all 3.
>>
>
> In other words you lack the capacity to refute them!
Why should anyone have to refute Aloha's
claims when he cannot back them up?
Mitchell Holman
"Proof" doesn't consist of "It's true 'cause I said so!"
"alohacyberian" (Keith Martin), 8/25/03