Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Before You Nerdtards Start Claiming That Tornadoes Are the Result of Global Warming or Climate Change...
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Hell Stomper
May 21, 2013, 6:47:58 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 6:09 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:32:22 -0500, AlleyCat <al...@aohell.com> wrote:
>
> >... there has been tornadic activity just as bad in the past... I
> >know... I lived in Tornado Alley in Oklahoma in the early 60's. We were
> >in the storm shelters EVERY FUCKING DAY.
>
> Is that why they're reporting that the number and intensity has
> increased 3 fold?
Bullshit, there are less this year than last, you clueless babbling
asshole moron!
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:32:22 -0500, AlleyCat <al...@aohell.com> wrote:
>
> >... there has been tornadic activity just as bad in the past... I
> >know... I lived in Tornado Alley in Oklahoma in the early 60's. We were
> >in the storm shelters EVERY FUCKING DAY.
>
> Is that why they're reporting that the number and intensity has
> increased 3 fold?
Bullshit, there are less this year than last, you clueless babbling
asshole moron!
Man of Mind
May 21, 2013, 7:24:49 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/2013 4:32 PM, smelly_fat whimpered pompously:
> I know... I lived in Tornado Alley in Oklahoma in the early 60's.
As did I..
> We were in the storm shelters EVERY FUCKING DAY
Nope, you are completely FOS..
--
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use
and authority of reason, and whose philosophy
consists in holding humanity in contempt, is
like administering medicine to the dead, or
endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."
--from Common Sense, by Thomas Paine
>
> ... there has been tornadic activity just as bad in the past...
Got something besides an anecdotal reference, smelly_fat?
> ... there has been tornadic activity just as bad in the past...
> I know... I lived in Tornado Alley in Oklahoma in the early 60's.
> We were in the storm shelters EVERY FUCKING DAY
--
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use
and authority of reason, and whose philosophy
consists in holding humanity in contempt, is
like administering medicine to the dead, or
endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."
--from Common Sense, by Thomas Paine
Man of Mind
May 21, 2013, 7:27:23 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/2013 5:47 PM, smells stumper writhed in denials:
>> Is that why they're reporting that the number and intensity has
>> increased 3 fold?
>
> Bullshit, there are less this year than last
The year's not over, you pompously posturing primate..
Try not to get yourself too upset over that fact..
>
> On May 21, 6:09 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:32:22 -0500, smelly_fat sniveled self-importantly:
> On May 21, 6:09 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ... there has been tornadic activity just as bad in the past... I
>>> know... I lived in Tornado Alley in Oklahoma in the early 60's. We were
>>> in the storm shelters EVERY FUCKING DAY.
Not true..
>>> ... there has been tornadic activity just as bad in the past... I
>>> know... I lived in Tornado Alley in Oklahoma in the early 60's. We were
>>> in the storm shelters EVERY FUCKING DAY.
>> Is that why they're reporting that the number and intensity has
>> increased 3 fold?
>
> Bullshit, there are less this year than last
Try not to get yourself too upset over that fact..
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Xavier
May 21, 2013, 9:34:30 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:24:49 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
Try this, cupcake:
ttp://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-
Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years
By: Mark Johnson, newsnet5.com
CLEVELAND - There are three agencies around the globe that are the keepers
of global temperature numbers. The first is NASA. The second is the
University of Huntsville in Alabama (satellite temperature records). The
third is the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, the UK Met,
as it is known.
Last week, the UK Met released its latest global temperature data to the
world. It shows that the Earth has not warmed in 15 years. The warming
ceased after the great super El Nino of 1998.
The numbers are based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations
around the planet. The data was quietly released last week without fanfare
and it confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
So, what does this mean for those scientists advocating the Global
Warming/Climate Change Theory? In 2007, the UK Met Office claimed that
global warming was about to "come roaring back." It said that between 2004
and 2014 there would be an overall increase in global temperature of 0.3C.
In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would
break the previous temperature record set in 1998. This has not happened.
These warming predictions are based on the outputs of computer forecast
known as Global Climate Models (GCMs). None of the GCMs have seen nor
predicted the lack of warming over the past 15 years, even as CO2 levels
continue to rise.
The Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being
undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
Dr. Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of
several peer-reviewed papers on GCMs. He argues the Met Office climate
models show there should have been "steady warming from 2000 until now."
"If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again," Scafetta
said, "the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually
become so great that the whole scientific community will question the
current theories."
Professor Judith Curry agrees. She is one of AmericaοΏ½s most eminent climate
experts and works at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She argued it is
becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in
rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in
the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
"The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models
may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of warmer in the
last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not surprised."
"When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the
climate cooled," Curry said. "The Pacific cycle οΏ½flippedοΏ½ back from warm to
cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the
next few years."
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when considering
global temperature trends.
"Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of the
global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the decade
of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will
continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in
the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains
groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is
not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
the most recent data."
"WeοΏ½re now well into the second decade of the pause,οΏ½ said Benny Peiser,
director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we donοΏ½t see
convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become
clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for
some scientists could be very serious."
Read the UK Met's full response to the UK Daily Mail article HERE .
> On 5/21/2013 4:32 PM, smelly_fat whimpered pompously:
>>
>> ... there has been tornadic activity just as bad in the past...
>
> Got something besides an anecdotal reference, smelly_fat?
>
>> I know... I lived in Tornado Alley in Oklahoma in the early 60's.
>
> As did I..
>
>> We were in the storm shelters EVERY FUCKING DAY
>
> Nope, you are completely FOS..
.
Try this, cupcake:
ttp://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-
Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years
By: Mark Johnson, newsnet5.com
CLEVELAND - There are three agencies around the globe that are the keepers
of global temperature numbers. The first is NASA. The second is the
University of Huntsville in Alabama (satellite temperature records). The
third is the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, the UK Met,
as it is known.
Last week, the UK Met released its latest global temperature data to the
world. It shows that the Earth has not warmed in 15 years. The warming
ceased after the great super El Nino of 1998.
The numbers are based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations
around the planet. The data was quietly released last week without fanfare
and it confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
So, what does this mean for those scientists advocating the Global
Warming/Climate Change Theory? In 2007, the UK Met Office claimed that
global warming was about to "come roaring back." It said that between 2004
and 2014 there would be an overall increase in global temperature of 0.3C.
In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would
break the previous temperature record set in 1998. This has not happened.
These warming predictions are based on the outputs of computer forecast
known as Global Climate Models (GCMs). None of the GCMs have seen nor
predicted the lack of warming over the past 15 years, even as CO2 levels
continue to rise.
The Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being
undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
Dr. Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of
several peer-reviewed papers on GCMs. He argues the Met Office climate
models show there should have been "steady warming from 2000 until now."
"If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again," Scafetta
said, "the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually
become so great that the whole scientific community will question the
current theories."
Professor Judith Curry agrees. She is one of AmericaοΏ½s most eminent climate
experts and works at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She argued it is
becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in
rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in
the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
"The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models
may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of warmer in the
last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not surprised."
"When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the
climate cooled," Curry said. "The Pacific cycle οΏ½flippedοΏ½ back from warm to
cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the
next few years."
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when considering
global temperature trends.
"Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of the
global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the decade
of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will
continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in
the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains
groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is
not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
the most recent data."
"WeοΏ½re now well into the second decade of the pause,οΏ½ said Benny Peiser,
director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we donοΏ½t see
convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become
clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for
some scientists could be very serious."
Read the UK Met's full response to the UK Daily Mail article HERE .
> On 5/21/2013 4:32 PM, smelly_fat whimpered pompously:
>>
>> ... there has been tornadic activity just as bad in the past...
>
> Got something besides an anecdotal reference, smelly_fat?
>
>> I know... I lived in Tornado Alley in Oklahoma in the early 60's.
>
> As did I..
>
>> We were in the storm shelters EVERY FUCKING DAY
>
> Nope, you are completely FOS..
Zepp
May 21, 2013, 10:51:49 PM5/21/13
to
Oh, look. ABC has another right wing mole pretending to be a journalist.
Let's see: warmest year: 2004 tied 1998, and 2011 surpassed it. 1998 is
tied for second-hottest year, but of the 15 hottest years recorded, 12
have been since 1998.
There is no 'pause'. Much of the excess heat in in the oceans, and
that's going to have massive effects.
Scafetta is a well-known contrarian best known for futile efforts to link
global warming with solar activity.
Curry is one of the handful of climatologists sceptical of climate
change, one who has found a niche writing for "Watts Up With That?" and
other climate denier sites. She bases her mistrust on the fact that so
many climatologists agree on it.
> Professor Judith Curry agrees. She is one of America’s most eminent
> director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we don’t see
Let's see: warmest year: 2004 tied 1998, and 2011 surpassed it. 1998 is
tied for second-hottest year, but of the 15 hottest years recorded, 12
have been since 1998.
There is no 'pause'. Much of the excess heat in in the oceans, and
that's going to have massive effects.
Scafetta is a well-known contrarian best known for futile efforts to link
global warming with solar activity.
Curry is one of the handful of climatologists sceptical of climate
change, one who has found a niche writing for "Watts Up With That?" and
other climate denier sites. She bases her mistrust on the fact that so
many climatologists agree on it.
> climate experts and works at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She
> argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an
> important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water
> temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
>
> "The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models
> may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of warmer in
> the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not surprised."
>
> "When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the
> climate cooled," Curry said. "The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm
> argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an
> important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water
> temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
>
> "The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models
> may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of warmer in
> the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not surprised."
>
> "When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the
> to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in
> the next few years."
>
> Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
> scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when considering
> global temperature trends.
>
> "Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of the
> global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
>
> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the
> decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the
> warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have
> continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being
> clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. The
> ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period
> for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are
> regularly updated to take account of the most recent data."
>
> "We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser,
> the next few years."
>
> Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
> scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when considering
> global temperature trends.
>
> "Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of the
> global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
>
> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the
> decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the
> warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have
> continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being
> clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. The
> ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period
> for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are
> regularly updated to take account of the most recent data."
>
> director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we don’t see
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 7:17:58 AM5/22/13
to
On 5/21/2013 6:59 PM, smelly_fat deleted and bleated pompously:
>
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:24:49 -0500,Man of Mind restored:
Several, but not as often as you've pretended..
>>> We were in the storm shelters EVERY FUCKING DAY
>
>> Nope, you are completely FOS..
>
> If you didn't live exactly where I lived
I note that you haven't a cite to back your contentious claim up..
Thought so..
--
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
-Lionel Trilling
>
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:24:49 -0500,Man of Mind restored:
>>
>> On 5/21/2013 4:32 PM, smelly_fat whimpered pompously:
>>>
>>> ... there has been tornadic activity just as bad in the past...
>>
>> Got something besides an anecdotal reference, smelly_fat?
>>
>>> I know... I lived in Tornado Alley in Oklahoma in the early 60's.
>>
>> As did I..
>
> Never a tornado, huh?
>> On 5/21/2013 4:32 PM, smelly_fat whimpered pompously:
>>>
>>> ... there has been tornadic activity just as bad in the past...
>>
>> Got something besides an anecdotal reference, smelly_fat?
>>
>>> I know... I lived in Tornado Alley in Oklahoma in the early 60's.
>>
>> As did I..
>
Several, but not as often as you've pretended..
>>> We were in the storm shelters EVERY FUCKING DAY
>
>> Nope, you are completely FOS..
>
I note that you haven't a cite to back your contentious claim up..
Thought so..
--
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
-Lionel Trilling
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 7:32:40 AM5/22/13
to
On 5/21/2013 8:34 PM, sillier blathered:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/
"At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA
GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away
the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record went all the way
back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far
above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest
El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point
is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary
to remove the very chaotic year to year variability that exists
(aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at the CRU’s
graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black."
http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
--
"The Republicans are the party that says
government doesn't work and then they get
elected and prove it." --P. J. O'Rourke
>
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:24:49 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> Try this
Nope, you're wrong.. Even the Met Office disagrees with you..
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:24:49 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> Try this
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/
"At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA
GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away
the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record went all the way
back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far
above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest
El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point
is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary
to remove the very chaotic year to year variability that exists
(aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at the CRU’s
graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black."
http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
--
"The Republicans are the party that says
government doesn't work and then they get
elected and prove it." --P. J. O'Rourke
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 8:08:13 AM5/22/13
to
On 5/21/2013 9:51 PM, Zepp wrote:
>
> Oh, look. ABC has another right wing mole pretending to be a journalist.
>
> Let's see: warmest year: 2004 tied 1998, and 2011 surpassed it. 1998 is
> tied for second-hottest year, but of the 15 hottest years recorded, 12
> have been since 1998.
But, these 'contrarians' would rather pretend that hasn't happened
>
> Oh, look. ABC has another right wing mole pretending to be a journalist.
>
> Let's see: warmest year: 2004 tied 1998, and 2011 surpassed it. 1998 is
> tied for second-hottest year, but of the 15 hottest years recorded, 12
> have been since 1998.
and adjust their 'cherry-pickings' to suit their fallacy arguments..
> There is no 'pause'. Much of the excess heat [is] in the oceans,
> and that's going to have massive effects.
Yup, just had a couple of examples of that here, recently..
> Scafetta is a well-known contrarian best known for futile efforts
> to link global warming with solar activity.
> Curry is one of the handful of climatologists sceptical of climate
> change, one who has found a niche writing for "Watts Up With That?"
> and other climate denier sites. She bases her mistrust on the fact
> that so many climatologists agree on it.
review and are accepted for publication say that warming is
happening on a global scale, and that CO2 (30 billion tons/year)
appears to be cause, that just flies in the face of 'reason'
for most 'right-thinking people'..
It's no mystery to me that the right-tards do not want to admit
to their poor stewardship of the planet. It would require an
admission of guilt that their tin-horn 'religion' of self-serving
avarice and greed is nothing more than an earlier hole in the ground..
Sharia Rocks
May 22, 2013, 10:12:17 AM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:32:40 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
Gimme another drink of the Al Gore Kool Aid; that's what he wrote.
> On 5/21/2013 8:34 PM, sillier blathered:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:24:49 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> Try this
>
> Nope, you're wrong.. Even the Met Office disagrees with you..
>
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/
>
> "At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA
> GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away
> the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record went all the way
> back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far
> above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest
> El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point
> is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary
> to remove the very chaotic year to year variability that exists
> (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at the CRUοΏ½s
Gimme another drink of the Al Gore Kool Aid; that's what he wrote.
> On 5/21/2013 8:34 PM, sillier blathered:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:24:49 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> Try this
>
> Nope, you're wrong.. Even the Met Office disagrees with you..
>
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/
>
> "At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA
> GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away
> the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record went all the way
> back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far
> above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest
> El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point
> is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary
> to remove the very chaotic year to year variability that exists
> graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black."
>
> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
.
>
> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
Sharia Rocks
May 22, 2013, 10:22:18 AM5/22/13
to
The hoax known as anthropomorphic global warming began with East Anglia.
Seems it ends there.
By the way, if you truly believe the hoax and you insist on going into
"Chicken little the sky is falling" mode,you need to walk-the-walk, instead
of just talking-the-talk.
That means for starters, give up your computer. Every little bit of energy
expenditure adds to your carbon hoof print.
Are you going to use a horse or bicycle for transportation?
Heating and cooling your home? Perhaps living underground where the
temperature will be an uncomfortable, but livable, 55 degrees Farenheit.
And so on.
>> climate experts and works at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She
>> argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an
>> important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water
>> temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
>>
>> "The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models
>> may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of warmer in
>> the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not surprised."
>>
>> "When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the
>> climate cooled," Curry said. "The Pacific cycle οΏ½flippedοΏ½ back from warm
>> argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an
>> important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water
>> temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
>>
>> "The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models
>> may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of warmer in
>> the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not surprised."
>>
>> "When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the
>> to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in
>> the next few years."
>>
>> Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
>> scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when considering
>> global temperature trends.
>>
>> "Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of the
>> global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
>>
>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the
>> decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the
>> warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have
>> continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being
>> clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. The
>> ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period
>> for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are
>> regularly updated to take account of the most recent data."
>>
>> "WeοΏ½re now well into the second decade of the pause,οΏ½ said Benny Peiser,
>> the next few years."
>>
>> Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
>> scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when considering
>> global temperature trends.
>>
>> "Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of the
>> global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
>>
>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the
>> decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the
>> warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have
>> continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being
>> clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. The
>> ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period
>> for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are
>> regularly updated to take account of the most recent data."
>>
>> director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we donοΏ½t see
>> convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become
>> clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications
>> for some scientists could be very serious."
>>
>> Read the UK Met's full response to the UK Daily Mail article HERE .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5/21/2013 4:32 PM, smelly_fat whimpered pompously:
>>>>
>>>> ... there has been tornadic activity just as bad in the past...
>>>
>>> Got something besides an anecdotal reference, smelly_fat?
>>>
>>>> I know... I lived in Tornado Alley in Oklahoma in the early 60's.
>>>
>>> As did I..
>>>
>>>> We were in the storm shelters EVERY FUCKING DAY
>>>
>>> Nope, you are completely FOS..
>>
>> .
.
>> clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications
>> for some scientists could be very serious."
>>
>> Read the UK Met's full response to the UK Daily Mail article HERE .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5/21/2013 4:32 PM, smelly_fat whimpered pompously:
>>>>
>>>> ... there has been tornadic activity just as bad in the past...
>>>
>>> Got something besides an anecdotal reference, smelly_fat?
>>>
>>>> I know... I lived in Tornado Alley in Oklahoma in the early 60's.
>>>
>>> As did I..
>>>
>>>> We were in the storm shelters EVERY FUCKING DAY
>>>
>>> Nope, you are completely FOS..
>>
>> .
Sharia Rocks
May 22, 2013, 10:26:05 AM5/22/13
to
Yo moonbat, a mere 30 yrs. ago, the peer-reviewed studies established a new
ice age.
Didn't work out that way.
The current hoax was driven by leftists from UN and your "scientists" know
who butters their bread.
By the way, why the fuck are you using a computer? What if anything are
you doing to lower global warming? Walk-the-walk, leftist punk.
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 10:32:54 AM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 9:12 AM, sharing blocks writhed in denials:
Okay..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how#Increasing-temperatures
"Climatic conditions are now monitored right across the world.
The widespread deployment of scientific weather instruments
over the last century means we can now reliably measure where,
and how large, recent changes in climate have been."
Too bad you couldn't refute a single scientific fact with your
prepubescent prattling..
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:32:40 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 5/21/2013 8:34 PM, sillier blathered:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:24:49 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>
>>> Try this
>>
>> Nope, you're wrong.. Even the Met Office disagrees with you..
>>
>> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how
>>
>> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/
>>
>> "At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA
>> GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away
>> the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record went all the way
>> back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far
>> above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest
>> El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point
>> is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary
>> to remove the very chaotic year to year variability that exists
>> (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at the CRU’s
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:32:40 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 5/21/2013 8:34 PM, sillier blathered:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:24:49 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>
>>> Try this
>>
>> Nope, you're wrong.. Even the Met Office disagrees with you..
>>
>> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how
>>
>> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/
>>
>> "At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA
>> GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away
>> the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record went all the way
>> back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far
>> above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest
>> El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point
>> is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary
>> to remove the very chaotic year to year variability that exists
>> graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black."
>>
>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>
> Gimme another
>>
>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>
Okay..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how#Increasing-temperatures
"Climatic conditions are now monitored right across the world.
The widespread deployment of scientific weather instruments
over the last century means we can now reliably measure where,
and how large, recent changes in climate have been."
Too bad you couldn't refute a single scientific fact with your
prepubescent prattling..
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 10:45:21 AM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 9:26 AM, sharing mental blocks whined:
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:08:13 -0500, Man of Mind replied to:
> [..], a mere 30 yrs. ago, the peer-reviewed studies established
> a new ice age.
Nope..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
"The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s),
based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have
a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and
what determines its course. Without the fundamental
understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…”
(which is taken directly from NAS, 1975).
( http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html )
In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing
mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling
– but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future.
By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that
CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has
subsequently strengthened."
> The current hoax was driven by leftists from UN
Nope.. Your regurgitated pabulum tells me that you're a Koch-sucker..
> By the way, why the fuck are you using a computer?
Oh, because sometimes a library and a sliderule just doesn't
cut it. But that was back in the day when the word "computer"
referred to a small cadre of smart people sitting in front
of 'dumb terminals', instead of the other way around, in your
case, 'nym-shifting troll-boi..
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:08:13 -0500, Man of Mind replied to:
> a new ice age.
Nope..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
"The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s),
based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have
a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and
what determines its course. Without the fundamental
understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…”
(which is taken directly from NAS, 1975).
( http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html )
In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing
mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling
– but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future.
By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that
CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has
subsequently strengthened."
> The current hoax was driven by leftists from UN
> By the way, why the fuck are you using a computer?
cut it. But that was back in the day when the word "computer"
referred to a small cadre of smart people sitting in front
of 'dumb terminals', instead of the other way around, in your
case, 'nym-shifting troll-boi..
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 10:50:21 AM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 9:22 AM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
Glad I could straighten you out on that, sharing mental blocks..
> The hoax known as anthropomorphic global warming
You meant "anthropogenic climate change"..
Glad I could straighten you out on that, sharing mental blocks..
Sharia Rocks
May 22, 2013, 10:54:34 AM5/22/13
to
I ain't a climatologist.
And neither are you, twinky.
Talk to the folks at E Anglia who got this whole hoax started to begin
with.
Hoax is driven sociopolitically ..... not scientifically.
By the way, what are you doing to ease your carbon hoof print?
You never did say.
.
And neither are you, twinky.
Talk to the folks at E Anglia who got this whole hoax started to begin
with.
Hoax is driven sociopolitically ..... not scientifically.
By the way, what are you doing to ease your carbon hoof print?
You never did say.
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 10:59:55 AM5/22/13
to
> I ain't a climatologist.
That's for certain..
> Talk to the folks at E Anglia who got this whole hoax started
> By the way, what are you doing to ease your carbon hoof print?
I'd rather not waste my time explaining the obvious to you, much like
I don't bother to teach a pig to sing. In short, I can lead you
right-wing Koch-sucking trolls to scientific culture, but I can't
make you think for yourselves..
opel
May 22, 2013, 12:47:53 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/21/2013 6:15 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> It's not the same as laughing at those Texas loons that deny global warm [sic]
> sufferring drought
Eh?
We're having global cooling, cat lady.
Weren't you informed?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly
released... and here is the chart to prove it
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012
there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about
the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new
data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists,
reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no
discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now
lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures
rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or
declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and
sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare,
and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures
six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend
since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much
cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
> It's not the same as laughing at those Texas loons that deny global warm [sic]
> sufferring drought
Eh?
We're having global cooling, cat lady.
Weren't you informed?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly
released... and here is the chart to prove it
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012
there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about
the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new
data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists,
reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no
discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now
lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures
rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or
declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and
sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare,
and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures
six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend
since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much
cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
Sharia Rocks
May 22, 2013, 1:10:57 PM5/22/13
to
The hoax was driven by the left's prime directive to control --- and tax.
They talk about temps deviating from the norm. Who the fuck was around
prior to homo sapiens to establish any norm?
We DO know that the climate changed, sometimes radically, sometimes slowly
... even before the industrial age, in fact even prior to homo sapiens.
Perfectly natural. Any change that took place was not caused by man.
Furthermore, man can do nothing to prevent it. It may be catastrophic ...
or not.
I'm more concerned with resource depletion. Human population from the
inception of homo sapiens to 1950 was 3 billion; it took 49 yrs. to double
to 6 billion. But that's all another issue.
Now don't you feel silly after learning fact.
On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:59:55 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 5/22/2013 9:54 AM, Sharia Rocks wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:32:54 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/22/2013 9:12 AM, sharing blocks writhed in denials:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:32:40 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/21/2013 8:34 PM, sillier blathered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:24:49 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try this
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you're wrong.. Even the Met Office disagrees with you..
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how
>>>>>
>>>>> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/
>>>>>
>>>>> "At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA
>>>>> GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away
>>>>> the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record went all the way
>>>>> back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far
>>>>> above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest
>>>>> El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point
>>>>> is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary
>>>>> to remove the very chaotic year to year variability that exists
>>>>> graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>>>
>>>> Gimme another
>>>
>>> Okay..
>>>
>>> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how#Increasing-temperatures
>>>
>>> "Climatic conditions are now monitored right across the world.
>>> The widespread deployment of scientific weather instruments
>>> over the last century means we can now reliably measure where,
>>> and how large, recent changes in climate have been."
>>>
>>> Too bad you couldn't refute a single scientific fact with your
>>> prepubescent prattling..
>>
>> I ain't a climatologist.
>
> That's for certain..
>
>> Talk to the folks at E Anglia who got this whole hoax started
>
> Why should I do that, you groveling right-wing retarded troll-wannabe?
>
>> By the way, what are you doing to ease your carbon hoof print?
>
> Well, since you barely comprehend even the basic sciences involved,
> I'd rather not waste my time explaining the obvious to you, much like
> I don't bother to teach a pig to sing. In short, I can lead you
> right-wing Koch-sucking trolls to scientific culture, but I can't
> make you think for yourselves..
.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>>>
>>>> Gimme another
>>>
>>> Okay..
>>>
>>> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how#Increasing-temperatures
>>>
>>> "Climatic conditions are now monitored right across the world.
>>> The widespread deployment of scientific weather instruments
>>> over the last century means we can now reliably measure where,
>>> and how large, recent changes in climate have been."
>>>
>>> Too bad you couldn't refute a single scientific fact with your
>>> prepubescent prattling..
>>
>> I ain't a climatologist.
>
> That's for certain..
>
>> Talk to the folks at E Anglia who got this whole hoax started
>
> Why should I do that, you groveling right-wing retarded troll-wannabe?
>
>> By the way, what are you doing to ease your carbon hoof print?
>
> Well, since you barely comprehend even the basic sciences involved,
> I'd rather not waste my time explaining the obvious to you, much like
> I don't bother to teach a pig to sing. In short, I can lead you
> right-wing Koch-sucking trolls to scientific culture, but I can't
> make you think for yourselves..
Sharia Rocks
May 22, 2013, 1:12:37 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:45:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
MotherJones doesn't impress, girly boy.
The hoax was driven by the left's prime directive to control --- and tax.
They talk about temps deviating from the norm. Who the fuck was around
prior to homo sapiens to establish any norm?
We DO know that the climate changed, sometimes radically, sometimes slowly
... even before the industrial age, in fact even prior to homo sapiens.
Perfectly natural. Any change that took place was not caused by man.
Furthermore, man can do nothing to prevent it. It may be catastrophic ...
or not.
I'm more concerned with resource depletion. Human population from the
inception of homo sapiens to 1950 was 3 billion; it took 49 yrs. to double
to 6 billion. But that's all another issue.
Now don't you feel silly after learning fact.
> "The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970嚙踝蕭s),
> based on reading the papers is, in summary: 嚙踝蕭嚙皺we do not have
> 嚙碾 but didn嚙踝蕭t know which would be dominant in the near future.
> By the end of the 1970嚙踝蕭s, though, it had become clear that
MotherJones doesn't impress, girly boy.
The hoax was driven by the left's prime directive to control --- and tax.
They talk about temps deviating from the norm. Who the fuck was around
prior to homo sapiens to establish any norm?
We DO know that the climate changed, sometimes radically, sometimes slowly
... even before the industrial age, in fact even prior to homo sapiens.
Perfectly natural. Any change that took place was not caused by man.
Furthermore, man can do nothing to prevent it. It may be catastrophic ...
or not.
I'm more concerned with resource depletion. Human population from the
inception of homo sapiens to 1950 was 3 billion; it took 49 yrs. to double
to 6 billion. But that's all another issue.
Now don't you feel silly after learning fact.
> based on reading the papers is, in summary: 嚙踝蕭嚙皺we do not have
> a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and
> what determines its course. Without the fundamental
> understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate嚙皺嚙踝蕭
> what determines its course. Without the fundamental
> (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975).
>
> ( http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html )
>
> In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing
> mechanisms 嚙碾 the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling
>
> ( http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html )
>
> In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing
> 嚙碾 but didn嚙踝蕭t know which would be dominant in the near future.
> By the end of the 1970嚙踝蕭s, though, it had become clear that
> CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has
> subsequently strengthened."
>
>> The current hoax was driven by leftists from UN
>
> Nope.. Your regurgitated pabulum tells me that you're a Koch-sucker..
>
>> By the way, why the fuck are you using a computer?
>
> Oh, because sometimes a library and a sliderule just doesn't
> cut it. But that was back in the day when the word "computer"
> referred to a small cadre of smart people sitting in front
> of 'dumb terminals', instead of the other way around, in your
> case, 'nym-shifting troll-boi..
.
> subsequently strengthened."
>
>> The current hoax was driven by leftists from UN
>
> Nope.. Your regurgitated pabulum tells me that you're a Koch-sucker..
>
>> By the way, why the fuck are you using a computer?
>
> Oh, because sometimes a library and a sliderule just doesn't
> cut it. But that was back in the day when the word "computer"
> referred to a small cadre of smart people sitting in front
> of 'dumb terminals', instead of the other way around, in your
> case, 'nym-shifting troll-boi..
Sharia Rocks
May 22, 2013, 1:22:14 PM5/22/13
to
Climate change; etiology unknown, but has been occuring since prior to homo
genesis.
The hoax was driven by the left's prime directive to control --- and tax.
They talk about temps deviating from the norm. Who the fuck was around
prior to homo sapiens to establish any norm?
We DO know that the climate changed, sometimes radically, sometimes slowly
... even before the industrial age, in fact even prior to homo sapiens.
Perfectly natural. Any change that took place was not caused by man.
Furthermore, man can do nothing to prevent it. It may be catastrophic ...
or not.
I'm more concerned with resource depletion. Human population from the
inception of homo sapiens to 1950 was 3 billion; it took 49 yrs. to double
to 6 billion. But that's all another issue.
Now don't you feel silly after learning fact.
Don't smoke; eat well; exercise; die anyway
May 22, 2013, 1:30:48 PM5/22/13
to
> based on reading the papers is, in summary: 嚙踝蕭嚙皺we do not have
> a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and
> what determines its course. Without the fundamental
> understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate嚙皺嚙踝蕭
> what determines its course. Without the fundamental
> (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975).
>
> ( http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html )
>
> In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing
> mechanisms 嚙碾 the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling
>
> ( http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html )
>
> In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing
> 嚙碾 but didn嚙踝蕭t know which would be dominant in the near future.
> By the end of the 1970嚙踝蕭s, though, it had become clear that
> CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has
> subsequently strengthened."
>
>> The current hoax was driven by leftists from UN
>
> Nope.. Your regurgitated pabulum tells me that you're a Koch-sucker..
>
>> By the way, why the fuck are you using a computer?
>
> Oh, because sometimes a library and a sliderule just doesn't
> cut it. But that was back in the day when the word "computer"
> referred to a small cadre of smart people sitting in front
> of 'dumb terminals', instead of the other way around, in your
> case, 'nym-shifting troll-boi..
For every alarmist site you can cite, I can find a site that purports to
> subsequently strengthened."
>
>> The current hoax was driven by leftists from UN
>
> Nope.. Your regurgitated pabulum tells me that you're a Koch-sucker..
>
>> By the way, why the fuck are you using a computer?
>
> Oh, because sometimes a library and a sliderule just doesn't
> cut it. But that was back in the day when the word "computer"
> referred to a small cadre of smart people sitting in front
> of 'dumb terminals', instead of the other way around, in your
> case, 'nym-shifting troll-boi..
expose the hoax. Both will contain impressive-sounding scientific
articles.
You don't have a clue of what they're talking about at either. Problem is
that you're a left-wing loon, IMO, who buys into the alarm. As a layman
myself, I have the opposite opinion.
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 1:51:31 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 12:10 PM, sharing blocks writhed in denials:
> They talk about temps deviating from the norm. Who the fuck was around
> prior to homo sapiens to establish any norm?
Trees, rocks and various developing life-forms. It's called the
'fossil record', in case you hadn't heard of it..
> We DO know that the climate changed, sometimes radically
Yup, and your point is?
> Perfectly natural.
Not usually, despite your appeal to an imagined consensus..
> I'm more concerned with resource depletion
You should be, Koch-sucker..
> Now don't you feel silly after learning fact.
No, but I'm wondering if you can hear me laughing..
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:59:55 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>
>> On 5/22/2013 9:54 AM, sharing blocks writhed in denials:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:59:55 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> The hoax was driven by the left's prime directive
That would be a fallacy argument..
> They talk about temps deviating from the norm. Who the fuck was around
> prior to homo sapiens to establish any norm?
'fossil record', in case you hadn't heard of it..
> We DO know that the climate changed, sometimes radically
> Perfectly natural.
Not usually, despite your appeal to an imagined consensus..
> I'm more concerned with resource depletion
> Now don't you feel silly after learning fact.
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 1:53:23 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 12:12 PM, sharing mental blocks whined:
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:45:21 -0500, Man of Mind wote:
> MotherJones doesn't impress
I see that you couldn't address my counter-arguments and cites..
Thought so..
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:45:21 -0500, Man of Mind wote:
I see that you couldn't address my counter-arguments and cites..
Thought so..
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 1:56:10 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 12:22 PM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
You're again mistaken, perhaps willfully ignorant, too..
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:50:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 5/22/2013 9:22 AM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
...
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:50:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 5/22/2013 9:22 AM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
>>> The hoax known as anthropomorphic global warming
>>
>> You meant "anthropogenic climate change"..
>>
>> Glad I could straighten you out on that, sharing mental blocks..
>
> Climate change; etiology unknown
>>
>> You meant "anthropogenic climate change"..
>>
>> Glad I could straighten you out on that, sharing mental blocks..
>
You're again mistaken, perhaps willfully ignorant, too..
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 1:59:31 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 12:30 PM, smokes; eats well; died anyway writhed in denials:
>> based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have
>> – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future.
>> By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that
> I can find a site that purports to expose the hoax.
There's no 'hoax', such as you pretend exists..
> You don't have a clue of what they're talking about
That's only your opinion, unschooled as it is..
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:45:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 5/22/2013 9:26 AM, sharing mental blocks whined:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:08:13 -0500, Man of Mind replied to:
....
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:45:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 5/22/2013 9:26 AM, sharing mental blocks whined:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:08:13 -0500, Man of Mind replied to:
>>>> Ya know, when 97% of the climate studies that have passed peer
>>>> review and are accepted for publication say that warming is
>>>> happening on a global scale, and that CO2 (30 billion tons/year)
>>>> appears to be cause, that just flies in the face of 'reason'
>>>> for most 'right-thinking people'..
>>>>
>>>> It's no mystery to me that the right-tards do not want to admit
>>>> to their poor stewardship of the planet. It would require an
>>>> admission of guilt that their tin-horn 'religion' of self-serving
>>>> avarice and greed is nothing more than an earlier hole in the ground..
>>>
>>> [..], a mere 30 yrs. ago, the peer-reviewed studies established
>>> a new ice age.
>>
>> Nope..
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
>>
>> "The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s),
>>>> review and are accepted for publication say that warming is
>>>> happening on a global scale, and that CO2 (30 billion tons/year)
>>>> appears to be cause, that just flies in the face of 'reason'
>>>> for most 'right-thinking people'..
>>>>
>>>> It's no mystery to me that the right-tards do not want to admit
>>>> to their poor stewardship of the planet. It would require an
>>>> admission of guilt that their tin-horn 'religion' of self-serving
>>>> avarice and greed is nothing more than an earlier hole in the ground..
>>>
>>> [..], a mere 30 yrs. ago, the peer-reviewed studies established
>>> a new ice age.
>>
>> Nope..
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
>>
>> based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have
>> a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and
>> what determines its course. Without the fundamental
>> understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…”
>> what determines its course. Without the fundamental
>> (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975).
>>
>> ( http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html )
>>
>> In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing
>> mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling
>>
>> ( http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html )
>>
>> In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing
>> – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future.
>> By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that
>> CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has
>> subsequently strengthened."
>>
>>> The current hoax was driven by leftists from UN
>>
>> Nope.. Your regurgitated pabulum tells me that you're a Koch-sucker..
>>
>>> By the way, why the fuck are you using a computer?
>>
>> Oh, because sometimes a library and a sliderule just doesn't
>> cut it. But that was back in the day when the word "computer"
>> referred to a small cadre of smart people sitting in front
>> of 'dumb terminals', instead of the other way around, in your
>> case, 'nym-shifting troll-boi..
>
> For every alarmist site you can cite
I didn't cite any "alarmist" sites..
>> subsequently strengthened."
>>
>>> The current hoax was driven by leftists from UN
>>
>> Nope.. Your regurgitated pabulum tells me that you're a Koch-sucker..
>>
>>> By the way, why the fuck are you using a computer?
>>
>> Oh, because sometimes a library and a sliderule just doesn't
>> cut it. But that was back in the day when the word "computer"
>> referred to a small cadre of smart people sitting in front
>> of 'dumb terminals', instead of the other way around, in your
>> case, 'nym-shifting troll-boi..
>
> For every alarmist site you can cite
> I can find a site that purports to expose the hoax.
> You don't have a clue of what they're talking about
Message has been deleted
Sharia Rocks
May 22, 2013, 3:48:39 PM5/22/13
to
Can't comment on his education but you are certainly no climatologist.
Sharia Rocks
May 22, 2013, 3:50:07 PM5/22/13
to
Why would I buy into the hoax on the say so of a moonbat with no background
in the relevant science at issue?
On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:56:10 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 5/22/2013 12:22 PM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:50:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/22/2013 9:22 AM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
> ...
>>>> The hoax known as anthropomorphic global warming
>>>
>>> You meant "anthropogenic climate change"..
>>>
>>> Glad I could straighten you out on that, sharing mental blocks..
>>
>> Climate change; etiology unknown
>
> You're again mistaken, perhaps willfully ignorant, too..
Sharia Rocks
May 22, 2013, 3:58:36 PM5/22/13
to
Even the most devoted gorons acknowledge the changing climatic events prior
to the Industrial Age.
I have to laugh when the sheep point out that climatology is not
meteorology whenever a denier cites the inaccuracies and chaos of weather
prediction.
And yet, the gorons will cite any type of unusual weather event as evidence
of man-made global warming. Until the past couple of weeks, this has been a
quiet Spring tornado-wise. Some PhD blamed global warming. And then the
recent monster tornado in OK ..... yup, global warming again.
Did I mention that I have to laugh when I hear goronic nonsense?
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 4:50:20 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 2:48 PM, sharing mental blocks whined:
>>>> based on reading the papers is, in summary: 嚙踝蕭嚙皺we do not have
>>>> 嚙碾 but didn嚙踝蕭t know which would be dominant in the near future.
>>>> By the end of the 1970嚙踝蕭s, though, it had become clear that
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:59:31 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>
>> On 5/22/2013 12:30 PM, smokes; eats well; died anyway writhed in denials:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:45:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:26 AM, sharing mental blocks whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:08:13 -0500, Man of Mind replied to:
.......
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:59:31 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>
>> On 5/22/2013 12:30 PM, smokes; eats well; died anyway writhed in denials:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:45:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:26 AM, sharing mental blocks whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:08:13 -0500, Man of Mind replied to:
>>>>>> Ya know, when 97% of the climate studies that have passed peer
>>>>>> review and are accepted for publication say that warming is
>>>>>> happening on a global scale, and that CO2 (30 billion tons/year)
>>>>>> appears to be cause, that just flies in the face of 'reason'
>>>>>> for most 'right-thinking people'..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's no mystery to me that the right-tards do not want to admit
>>>>>> to their poor stewardship of the planet. It would require an
>>>>>> admission of guilt that their tin-horn 'religion' of self-serving
>>>>>> avarice and greed is nothing more than an earlier hole in the ground..
>>>>>
>>>>> [..], a mere 30 yrs. ago, the peer-reviewed studies established
>>>>> a new ice age.
>>>>
>>>> Nope..
>>>>
>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
>>>>
>>>> "The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970嚙踝蕭s),
>>>>>> review and are accepted for publication say that warming is
>>>>>> happening on a global scale, and that CO2 (30 billion tons/year)
>>>>>> appears to be cause, that just flies in the face of 'reason'
>>>>>> for most 'right-thinking people'..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's no mystery to me that the right-tards do not want to admit
>>>>>> to their poor stewardship of the planet. It would require an
>>>>>> admission of guilt that their tin-horn 'religion' of self-serving
>>>>>> avarice and greed is nothing more than an earlier hole in the ground..
>>>>>
>>>>> [..], a mere 30 yrs. ago, the peer-reviewed studies established
>>>>> a new ice age.
>>>>
>>>> Nope..
>>>>
>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
>>>>
>>>> based on reading the papers is, in summary: 嚙踝蕭嚙皺we do not have
>>>> a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and
>>>> what determines its course. Without the fundamental
>>>> understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate嚙皺嚙踝蕭
>>>> what determines its course. Without the fundamental
>>>> (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975).
>>>>
>>>> ( http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html )
>>>>
>>>> In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing
>>>> mechanisms 嚙碾 the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling
>>>>
>>>> ( http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html )
>>>>
>>>> In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing
>>>> 嚙碾 but didn嚙踝蕭t know which would be dominant in the near future.
>>>> By the end of the 1970嚙踝蕭s, though, it had become clear that
>>>> CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has
>>>> subsequently strengthened."
>>>>
>>>>> The current hoax was driven by leftists from UN
>>>>
>>>> Nope.. Your regurgitated pabulum tells me that you're a Koch-sucker..
>>>>
>>>>> By the way, why the fuck are you using a computer?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, because sometimes a library and a sliderule just doesn't
>>>> cut it. But that was back in the day when the word "computer"
>>>> referred to a small cadre of smart people sitting in front
>>>> of 'dumb terminals', instead of the other way around, in your
>>>> case, 'nym-shifting troll-boi..
>>>
>>> For every alarmist site you can cite
>>
>> I didn't cite any "alarmist" sites..
>>
>>> I can find a site that purports to expose the hoax.
>>
>> There's no 'hoax', such as you pretend exists..
>>
>>> You don't have a clue of what they're talking about
>>
>> That's only your opinion, unschooled as it is..
>
>>>> subsequently strengthened."
>>>>
>>>>> The current hoax was driven by leftists from UN
>>>>
>>>> Nope.. Your regurgitated pabulum tells me that you're a Koch-sucker..
>>>>
>>>>> By the way, why the fuck are you using a computer?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, because sometimes a library and a sliderule just doesn't
>>>> cut it. But that was back in the day when the word "computer"
>>>> referred to a small cadre of smart people sitting in front
>>>> of 'dumb terminals', instead of the other way around, in your
>>>> case, 'nym-shifting troll-boi..
>>>
>>> For every alarmist site you can cite
>>
>> I didn't cite any "alarmist" sites..
>>
>>> I can find a site that purports to expose the hoax.
>>
>> There's no 'hoax', such as you pretend exists..
>>
>>> You don't have a clue of what they're talking about
>>
>> That's only your opinion, unschooled as it is..
>
> Can't comment on his education
Your comments clearly have no basis in actual science..
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 4:52:55 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 2:50 PM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
into the Koch-funded anti-environmental pabulum, from
the looks of it so far..
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:56:10 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 5/22/2013 12:22 PM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:50:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:22 AM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
.....
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:56:10 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 5/22/2013 12:22 PM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:50:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:22 AM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
>>>>> The hoax known as anthropomorphic global warming
>>>>
>>>> You meant "anthropogenic climate change"..
>>>>
>>>> Glad I could straighten you out on that, sharing mental blocks..
>>>
>>> Climate change; etiology unknown
>>
>> You're again mistaken, perhaps willfully ignorant, too..
>
>>>>
>>>> You meant "anthropogenic climate change"..
>>>>
>>>> Glad I could straighten you out on that, sharing mental blocks..
>>>
>>> Climate change; etiology unknown
>>
>> You're again mistaken, perhaps willfully ignorant, too..
>
> Why would I buy into the hoax
Because you're already so gullible that you've bought
into the Koch-funded anti-environmental pabulum, from
the looks of it so far..
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 4:55:19 PM5/22/13
to
> Even the most devoted gorons
I see that you're still desperately grasping at straw..
Example follows:
> I have to laugh when the sheep
Thought so..
Sharia Rocks
May 22, 2013, 5:26:23 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:50:20 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 5/22/2013 2:48 PM, sharing mental blocks whined:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:59:31 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/22/2013 12:30 PM, smokes; eats well; died anyway writhed in denials:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:45:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:26 AM, sharing mental blocks whined:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:08:13 -0500, Man of Mind replied to:
> .......
>>>>>>> Ya know, when 97% of the climate studies that have passed peer
>>>>>>> review and are accepted for publication say that warming is
>>>>>>> happening on a global scale, and that CO2 (30 billion tons/year)
>>>>>>> appears to be cause, that just flies in the face of 'reason'
>>>>>>> for most 'right-thinking people'..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's no mystery to me that the right-tards do not want to admit
>>>>>>> to their poor stewardship of the planet. It would require an
>>>>>>> admission of guilt that their tin-horn 'religion' of self-serving
>>>>>>> avarice and greed is nothing more than an earlier hole in the ground..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [..], a mere 30 yrs. ago, the peer-reviewed studies established
>>>>>> a new ice age.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope..
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
>>>>>
>>>>> "The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s),
> On 5/22/2013 2:48 PM, sharing mental blocks whined:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:59:31 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/22/2013 12:30 PM, smokes; eats well; died anyway writhed in denials:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:45:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:26 AM, sharing mental blocks whined:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:08:13 -0500, Man of Mind replied to:
> .......
>>>>>>> Ya know, when 97% of the climate studies that have passed peer
>>>>>>> review and are accepted for publication say that warming is
>>>>>>> happening on a global scale, and that CO2 (30 billion tons/year)
>>>>>>> appears to be cause, that just flies in the face of 'reason'
>>>>>>> for most 'right-thinking people'..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's no mystery to me that the right-tards do not want to admit
>>>>>>> to their poor stewardship of the planet. It would require an
>>>>>>> admission of guilt that their tin-horn 'religion' of self-serving
>>>>>>> avarice and greed is nothing more than an earlier hole in the ground..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [..], a mere 30 yrs. ago, the peer-reviewed studies established
>>>>>> a new ice age.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope..
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
>>>>>
>>>>> based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have
>>>>> a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and
>>>>> what determines its course. Without the fundamental
>>>>> understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…”
>>>>> what determines its course. Without the fundamental
>>>>> (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975).
>>>>>
>>>>> ( http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html )
>>>>>
>>>>> In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing
>>>>> mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling
>>>>>
>>>>> ( http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html )
>>>>>
>>>>> In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing
>>>>> – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future.
>>>>> By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that
>>>>> CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has
>>>>> subsequently strengthened."
>>>>>
>>>>>> The current hoax was driven by leftists from UN
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.. Your regurgitated pabulum tells me that you're a Koch-sucker..
>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, why the fuck are you using a computer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, because sometimes a library and a sliderule just doesn't
>>>>> cut it. But that was back in the day when the word "computer"
>>>>> referred to a small cadre of smart people sitting in front
>>>>> of 'dumb terminals', instead of the other way around, in your
>>>>> case, 'nym-shifting troll-boi..
>>>>
>>>> For every alarmist site you can cite
>>>
>>> I didn't cite any "alarmist" sites..
>>>
>>>> I can find a site that purports to expose the hoax.
>>>
>>> There's no 'hoax', such as you pretend exists..
>>>
>>>> You don't have a clue of what they're talking about
>>>
>>> That's only your opinion, unschooled as it is..
>>
>> Can't comment on his education
>
> Your comments clearly have no basis in actual science..
Yours score high in left-wing propaganda.
>>>>> subsequently strengthened."
>>>>>
>>>>>> The current hoax was driven by leftists from UN
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.. Your regurgitated pabulum tells me that you're a Koch-sucker..
>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, why the fuck are you using a computer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, because sometimes a library and a sliderule just doesn't
>>>>> cut it. But that was back in the day when the word "computer"
>>>>> referred to a small cadre of smart people sitting in front
>>>>> of 'dumb terminals', instead of the other way around, in your
>>>>> case, 'nym-shifting troll-boi..
>>>>
>>>> For every alarmist site you can cite
>>>
>>> I didn't cite any "alarmist" sites..
>>>
>>>> I can find a site that purports to expose the hoax.
>>>
>>> There's no 'hoax', such as you pretend exists..
>>>
>>>> You don't have a clue of what they're talking about
>>>
>>> That's only your opinion, unschooled as it is..
>>
>> Can't comment on his education
>
> Your comments clearly have no basis in actual science..
Sharia Rocks
May 22, 2013, 5:28:14 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:52:55 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 5/22/2013 2:50 PM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:56:10 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/22/2013 12:22 PM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:50:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:22 AM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
> .....
>>>>>> The hoax known as anthropomorphic global warming
>>>>>
>>>>> You meant "anthropogenic climate change"..
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad I could straighten you out on that, sharing mental blocks..
>>>>
>>>> Climate change; etiology unknown
>>>
>>> You're again mistaken, perhaps willfully ignorant, too..
>>
>> Why would I buy into the hoax
>
> Because you're already so gullible that you've bought
> into the Koch-funded anti-environmental pabulum, from
> the looks of it so far..
By the way, the temperature hasn't risen in 15 yrs.
> On 5/22/2013 2:50 PM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:56:10 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/22/2013 12:22 PM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:50:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:22 AM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
> .....
>>>>>> The hoax known as anthropomorphic global warming
>>>>>
>>>>> You meant "anthropogenic climate change"..
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad I could straighten you out on that, sharing mental blocks..
>>>>
>>>> Climate change; etiology unknown
>>>
>>> You're again mistaken, perhaps willfully ignorant, too..
>>
>> Why would I buy into the hoax
>
> Because you're already so gullible that you've bought
> into the Koch-funded anti-environmental pabulum, from
> the looks of it so far..
And when it did, there was no definitive evidence that it was caused by
man.
Sharia Rocks
May 22, 2013, 5:31:30 PM5/22/13
to
Earth since 1998.
Gotta love it, eh.
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 6:32:35 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 4:28 PM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/
"At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and
the NASA GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year,
it blew away the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record
went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA,
it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the
year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year
as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates
why it is necessary to remove the very chaotic year to year
variability that exists (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data.
Looking at the CRU’s graph below, you can see the result of that
Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:52:55 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 5/22/2013 2:50 PM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:56:10 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2013 12:22 PM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:50:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:22 AM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
.......
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:52:55 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 5/22/2013 2:50 PM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:56:10 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2013 12:22 PM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:50:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:22 AM, sharing mental blocks whined desperately:
>>>>>>> The hoax known as anthropomorphic global warming
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You meant "anthropogenic climate change"..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Glad I could straighten you out on that, sharing mental blocks..
>>>>>
>>>>> Climate change; etiology unknown
>>>>
>>>> You're again mistaken, perhaps willfully ignorant, too..
>>>
>>> Why would I buy into the hoax
>>
>> Because you're already so gullible that you've bought
>> into the Koch-funded anti-environmental pabulum, from
>> the looks of it so far..
>
> By the way, the temperature hasn't risen in 15 yrs
You are wrong..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You meant "anthropogenic climate change"..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Glad I could straighten you out on that, sharing mental blocks..
>>>>>
>>>>> Climate change; etiology unknown
>>>>
>>>> You're again mistaken, perhaps willfully ignorant, too..
>>>
>>> Why would I buy into the hoax
>>
>> Because you're already so gullible that you've bought
>> into the Koch-funded anti-environmental pabulum, from
>> the looks of it so far..
>
> By the way, the temperature hasn't risen in 15 yrs
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/
"At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and
the NASA GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year,
it blew away the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record
went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA,
it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the
year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year
as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates
why it is necessary to remove the very chaotic year to year
variability that exists (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data.
Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
Man of Mind
May 22, 2013, 6:35:41 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 4:31 PM, sharing bollocks writhed in denials:
You apparently haven't a clue about what they've reported, shared
bollocks. Too bad you couldn't directly refute my counter-argument..
Not unexpected, that..
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:55:19 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 5/22/2013 2:58 PM, sharing bollocks writhed in denials:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:55:19 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:51:31 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2013 12:10 PM, sharing bollocks writhed in denials:
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:51:31 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:59:55 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:54 AM, sharing bollocks writhed in denials:
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:59:55 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:32:54 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:12 AM, sharing bollocks writhed in denials:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:32:54 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:32:40 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2013 8:34 PM, sillier/sharing bollocks blathered:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:32:40 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
bollocks. Too bad you couldn't directly refute my counter-argument..
Not unexpected, that..
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 8:37:33 AM5/23/13
to
ttp://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-
> smoothing in black.
>
> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>
> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
.
>
> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>
> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 8:38:31 AM5/23/13
to
Man of Mind
May 23, 2013, 9:13:33 AM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 7:37 AM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
.........
Your embarrassment is noted..
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:32:35 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 5/22/2013 4:28 PM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:32:35 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:52:55 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2013 2:50 PM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:52:55 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:56:10 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 12:22 PM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:56:10 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:50:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:22 AM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:50:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>
.........
>>>>>>>>> The hoax known as anthropomorphic global warming
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You meant "anthropogenic climate change"..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Glad I could straighten you out on that, sharing mental blocks..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Climate change; etiology unknown
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're again mistaken, perhaps willfully ignorant, too..
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would I buy into the hoax
>>>>
>>>> Because you're already so gullible that you've bought
>>>> into the Koch-funded anti-environmental pabulum, from
>>>> the looks of it so far..
>>>
>>> By the way, the temperature hasn't risen in 15 yrs
>>
>> You are wrong..
>>
>> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/
>>
>> "At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and
>> the NASA GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year,
>> it blew away the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record
>> went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA,
>> it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the
>> year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year
>> as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates
>> why it is necessary to remove the very chaotic year to year
>> variability that exists (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data.
>> Looking at the CRU’s graph below, you can see the result of that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You meant "anthropogenic climate change"..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Glad I could straighten you out on that, sharing mental blocks..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Climate change; etiology unknown
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're again mistaken, perhaps willfully ignorant, too..
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would I buy into the hoax
>>>>
>>>> Because you're already so gullible that you've bought
>>>> into the Koch-funded anti-environmental pabulum, from
>>>> the looks of it so far..
>>>
>>> By the way, the temperature hasn't risen in 15 yrs
>>
>> You are wrong..
>>
>> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/
>>
>> "At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and
>> the NASA GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year,
>> it blew away the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record
>> went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA,
>> it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the
>> year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year
>> as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates
>> why it is necessary to remove the very chaotic year to year
>> variability that exists (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data.
>> smoothing in black.
>>
>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>
>> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>
> http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years
>>
>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>
>> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>
>
> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the decade
> of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will
> continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
> trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in
> the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains
> groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is
> not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
> the most recent data."
Wow, even your own site refutes your primate posturings..
> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the decade
> of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will
> continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
> trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in
> the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains
> groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is
> not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
> the most recent data."
Your embarrassment is noted..
Dakota
May 23, 2013, 9:17:03 AM5/23/13
to
generated by industry. However, deforestation continues so man's
contribution to climate change is ongoing. As arctic ice continues to
melt, the planet's albedo will continue to drop. As a result, we may
soon reach a tipping point that will wreak havoc with the Earth's
climate for decades if not centuries no matter how hard we try to stop it.
"ItοΏ½s also possible to posit a sort of secular PascalοΏ½s Wager here:
If we clean up our act and it turns out the deniers are right, we get
renewable energy and a cleaner world to share with our fellow
creatures and pass on to our children.
If we do nothing and Al Gore is right, weοΏ½re fucked." - Author unknown
to me.
Man of Mind
May 23, 2013, 9:18:12 AM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 7:38 AM, surely bollocks writhed in denials:
.......
..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how#Increasing-temperatures
"Climatic conditions are now monitored right across the world.
The widespread deployment of scientific weather instruments
over the last century means we can now reliably measure where,
and how large, recent changes in climate have been."
Too bad you couldn't refute a single scientific fact with your
preposterous prepubescent prattling, surely bollocks..
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:35:41 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 5/22/2013 4:31 PM, surely bollocks writhed in denials:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:35:41 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:55:19 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2013 2:58 PM, surely bollocks writhed in denials:
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:55:19 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:51:31 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 12:10 PM, surely bollocks writhed in denials:
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:51:31 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
.......
>>>>>>> They talk about temps deviating from the norm. Who the fuck was around
>>>>>>> prior to homo sapiens to establish any norm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trees, rocks and various developing life-forms. It's called the
>>>>>> 'fossil record', in case you hadn't heard of it..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We DO know that the climate changed, sometimes radically
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup, and your point is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perfectly natural.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not usually, despite your appeal to an imagined consensus..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm more concerned with resource depletion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should be, Koch-sucker..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now don't you feel silly after learning fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, but I'm wondering if you can hear me laughing..
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the most devoted gorons
>>>>
>>>> I see that you're still desperately grasping at straw..
>>>>
>>>> Example follows:
>>>>
>>>>> I have to laugh when the sheep
>>>>
>>>> Yet, it is yourself that is being 'herded', Koch-sucker..
>>>>
>>>> Thought so..
>>>
>>> The irony is that it's East Anglia
>>
>> You apparently haven't a clue about what they've reported, shared
>> bollocks. Too bad you couldn't directly refute my counter-argument..
>>
>> Not unexpected, that..
>
> http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years
>>>>>>> prior to homo sapiens to establish any norm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trees, rocks and various developing life-forms. It's called the
>>>>>> 'fossil record', in case you hadn't heard of it..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We DO know that the climate changed, sometimes radically
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup, and your point is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perfectly natural.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not usually, despite your appeal to an imagined consensus..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm more concerned with resource depletion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should be, Koch-sucker..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now don't you feel silly after learning fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, but I'm wondering if you can hear me laughing..
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the most devoted gorons
>>>>
>>>> I see that you're still desperately grasping at straw..
>>>>
>>>> Example follows:
>>>>
>>>>> I have to laugh when the sheep
>>>>
>>>> Yet, it is yourself that is being 'herded', Koch-sucker..
>>>>
>>>> Thought so..
>>>
>>> The irony is that it's East Anglia
>>
>> You apparently haven't a clue about what they've reported, shared
>> bollocks. Too bad you couldn't directly refute my counter-argument..
>>
>> Not unexpected, that..
>
..
> Last week, the UK Met released its latest global temperature data to the
> world. It shows that the Earth has not warmed in 15 years. The warming
> ceased after the great super El Nino of 1998.
And..
> world. It shows that the Earth has not warmed in 15 years. The warming
> ceased after the great super El Nino of 1998.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how#Increasing-temperatures
"Climatic conditions are now monitored right across the world.
The widespread deployment of scientific weather instruments
over the last century means we can now reliably measure where,
and how large, recent changes in climate have been."
Too bad you couldn't refute a single scientific fact with your
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 9:36:43 AM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:18:12 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
ttp://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-
Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years
By: Mark Johnson, newsnet5.com
CLEVELAND - There are three agencies around the globe that are the keepers
of global temperature numbers. The first is NASA. The second is the
University of Huntsville in Alabama (satellite temperature records). The
third is the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, the UK Met,
as it is known.
Last week, the UK Met released its latest global temperature data to the
world. It shows that the Earth has not warmed in 15 years. The warming
ceased after the great super El Nino of 1998.
world. It shows that the Earth has not warmed in 15 years. The warming
ceased after the great super El Nino of 1998.
Dakota
May 23, 2013, 9:37:22 AM5/23/13
to
humans first were the result of natural occurrences. Human
contribution to climate change is very recent with respect to the age
of our planet. Humans didn't cause the last Ice Age but are on track
to cause the next one.
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 9:37:31 AM5/23/13
to
The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the decade
of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will
continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in
the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains
groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is
not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
the most recent data."
of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will
continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in
the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains
groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is
not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
the most recent data."
"WeοΏ½re now well into the second decade of the pause,οΏ½ said Benny Peiser,
director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we donοΏ½t see
convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become
clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for
some scientists could be very serious."
director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we donοΏ½t see
convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become
clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for
some scientists could be very serious."
>>> smoothing in black.
>>>
>>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>>
>>> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>>
>> http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years
>>
>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the decade
>> of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will
>> continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
>> trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in
>> the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains
>> groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is
>> not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
>> the most recent data."
>
> Wow, even your own site refutes your primate posturings..
>
> Your embarrassment is noted..
.
>>>
>>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>>
>>> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>>
>> http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years
>>
>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the decade
>> of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will
>> continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
>> trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in
>> the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains
>> groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is
>> not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
>> the most recent data."
>
> Wow, even your own site refutes your primate posturings..
>
> Your embarrassment is noted..
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 9:42:35 AM5/23/13
to
And what have the scientists done to develop this mysterious "renewable
energy" that can be utilized on the same scale that fossil fuels are doing
right now.
Obama's green energy companies are failing, one after another. So much for
the stimulus money that the taxpayer AND YOUR DESCENDANTS paid for.
Man of Mind
May 23, 2013, 9:53:08 AM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 8:36 AM, surely bollocks writhed in denials:
>
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:18:12 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting::
*>cricket.wav<*
--
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
-Lionel Trilling
>
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:18:12 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting::
>>
>> On 5/23/2013 7:38 AM, surely bollocks writhed in denials:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:35:41 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2013 4:31 PM, surely bollocks writhed in denials:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:55:19 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 2:58 PM, surely bollocks writhed in denials:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:51:31 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 12:10 PM, surely bollocks writhed in denials:
.........
>> On 5/23/2013 7:38 AM, surely bollocks writhed in denials:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:35:41 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2013 4:31 PM, surely bollocks writhed in denials:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:55:19 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 2:58 PM, surely bollocks writhed in denials:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:51:31 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 12:10 PM, surely bollocks writhed in denials:
--
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
-Lionel Trilling
Man of Mind
May 23, 2013, 9:54:31 AM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 8:37 AM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:13:33 -0500, Man of Mind was exploting:
>
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:13:33 -0500, Man of Mind was exploting:
>>
>> On 5/23/2013 7:37 AM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:32:35 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2013 4:28 PM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:52:55 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 2:50 PM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:56:10 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 12:22 PM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:50:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:22 AM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
...........
>> On 5/23/2013 7:37 AM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:32:35 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2013 4:28 PM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:52:55 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 2:50 PM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:56:10 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 12:22 PM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:50:21 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 9:22 AM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
Zepp
May 23, 2013, 10:01:28 AM5/23/13
to
>>> climate experts and works at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She
>>> argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an
>>> important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water
>>> temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
>>>
>>> "The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the
>>> models may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of
>>> warmer in the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not
>>> surprised."
>>>
>>> "When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970,
>>> the climate cooled," Curry said. "The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back
>>> argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an
>>> important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water
>>> temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
>>>
>>> "The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the
>>> models may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of
>>> warmer in the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not
>>> surprised."
>>>
>>> "When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970,
>>> from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely
>>> to flip in the next few years."
>>>
>>> Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
>>> scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when
>>> considering global temperature trends.
>>>
>>> "Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of
>>> the global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
>>>
>>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the
>>> decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the
>>> warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have
>>> continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009
>>> being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to
>>> 1850. The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The
>>> complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these
>>> projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent
>>> data."
>>>
>>> "We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny
>>> to flip in the next few years."
>>>
>>> Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
>>> scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when
>>> considering global temperature trends.
>>>
>>> "Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of
>>> the global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
>>>
>>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the
>>> decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the
>>> warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have
>>> continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009
>>> being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to
>>> 1850. The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The
>>> complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these
>>> projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent
>>> data."
>>>
>>> Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we don’t
>>>> smoothing in black.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>>>
>>>> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>>>
>> The recession has undoubtedly reduced the amount of CO2 emissions
>> generated by industry. However, deforestation continues so man's
>> contribution to climate change is ongoing. As arctic ice continues to
>> melt, the planet's albedo will continue to drop. As a result, we may
>> soon reach a tipping point that will wreak havoc with the Earth's
>> climate for decades if not centuries no matter how hard we try to stop
>> it.
>>
>> "It’s also possible to posit a sort of secular Pascal’s Wager here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>>>
>>>> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>>>
>> The recession has undoubtedly reduced the amount of CO2 emissions
>> generated by industry. However, deforestation continues so man's
>> contribution to climate change is ongoing. As arctic ice continues to
>> melt, the planet's albedo will continue to drop. As a result, we may
>> soon reach a tipping point that will wreak havoc with the Earth's
>> climate for decades if not centuries no matter how hard we try to stop
>> it.
>>
>>
>> If we clean up our act and it turns out the deniers are right, we get
>> renewable energy and a cleaner world to share with our fellow creatures
>> and pass on to our children.
>>
>> If we do nothing and Al Gore is right, we’re fucked." - Author unknown
>> If we clean up our act and it turns out the deniers are right, we get
>> renewable energy and a cleaner world to share with our fellow creatures
>> and pass on to our children.
>>
>> to me.
>
> What are YOU doing personally, buttercup?
Ah, the favourite whine of the beleagured corporate apologist.
>
> What are YOU doing personally, buttercup?
>
> And what have the scientists done to develop this mysterious "renewable
> energy" that can be utilized on the same scale that fossil fuels are
> doing right now.
>
> Obama's green energy companies are failing, one after another. So much
> for the stimulus money that the taxpayer AND YOUR DESCENDANTS paid for.
Tesla just paid off their half a billion government loan--nine years
> And what have the scientists done to develop this mysterious "renewable
> energy" that can be utilized on the same scale that fossil fuels are
> doing right now.
>
> Obama's green energy companies are failing, one after another. So much
> for the stimulus money that the taxpayer AND YOUR DESCENDANTS paid for.
early. The sucess rate of government underwritten green startups is
better than that of startups in general.
Stop whining at us, little corporate whore.
Dakota
May 23, 2013, 10:36:07 AM5/23/13
to
posterboard as added insulation over the windows in my apartment. Last
summer I opened the windows at night so the warm air inside my
apartment could go out and be replaced by the cooler night air. This
allowed me to go without air-conditioning last summer. I've turned off
the 'hot dry' feature on my dishwasher and let the dishes air dry.
I'll admit it's not much but every little bit helps. My energy bills
have gone down considerably. The biggest thing I've done personally to
reduce my impact on climate change is to vote for politicians who are
not owned by the oil companies.
How about you, meadow muffin? What are you doing personally?
>
> And what have the scientists done to develop this mysterious "renewable
> energy" that can be utilized on the same scale that fossil fuels are doing
> right now.
>
Between the GOP (Greedy Oil Promoter) and the Tea Party (Texas Tea as
> And what have the scientists done to develop this mysterious "renewable
> energy" that can be utilized on the same scale that fossil fuels are doing
> right now.
>
in the Beverly Hillbillies Theme song) idiots in Congress, funding has
been reduced dramatically so progress has been slow but steady.
>
> Obama's green energy companies are failing, one after another. So much for
> the stimulus money that the taxpayer AND YOUR DESCENDANTS paid for.
>
The green energy companies haven't received .01% of the amount the
> Obama's green energy companies are failing, one after another. So much for
> the stimulus money that the taxpayer AND YOUR DESCENDANTS paid for.
>
government shovels into the pockets of the oil and coal industries in
the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and reduced regulation.
If the tax payers and my descendants already paid for it, what are you
whining about? They'll be paying for Bush's wars for decades.
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 10:44:32 AM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:01:28 +0000 (UTC), Zepp wrote:
Cite those that have been successful.
>>>> Professor Judith Curry agrees. She is one of AmericaοΏ½s most eminent
>>>> Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we donοΏ½t
>>>>> Looking at the CRUοΏ½s graph below, you can see the result of that
Cite those that have been successful.
>>>> climate experts and works at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She
>>>> argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an
>>>> important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water
>>>> temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
>>>>
>>>> "The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the
>>>> models may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of
>>>> warmer in the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not
>>>> surprised."
>>>>
>>>> "When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970,
>>>> the climate cooled," Curry said. "The Pacific cycle οΏ½flippedοΏ½ back
>>>> argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an
>>>> important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water
>>>> temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
>>>>
>>>> "The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the
>>>> models may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of
>>>> warmer in the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not
>>>> surprised."
>>>>
>>>> "When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970,
>>>> from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely
>>>> to flip in the next few years."
>>>>
>>>> Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
>>>> scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when
>>>> considering global temperature trends.
>>>>
>>>> "Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of
>>>> the global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
>>>>
>>>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the
>>>> decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the
>>>> warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have
>>>> continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009
>>>> being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to
>>>> 1850. The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The
>>>> complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these
>>>> projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent
>>>> data."
>>>>
>>>> "WeοΏ½re now well into the second decade of the pause,οΏ½ said Benny
>>>> to flip in the next few years."
>>>>
>>>> Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
>>>> scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when
>>>> considering global temperature trends.
>>>>
>>>> "Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of
>>>> the global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
>>>>
>>>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the
>>>> decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the
>>>> warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have
>>>> continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009
>>>> being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to
>>>> 1850. The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The
>>>> complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these
>>>> projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent
>>>> data."
>>>>
>>>> Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we donοΏ½t
>>>>> smoothing in black.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>>>>
>>>>> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>>>>
>>> The recession has undoubtedly reduced the amount of CO2 emissions
>>> generated by industry. However, deforestation continues so man's
>>> contribution to climate change is ongoing. As arctic ice continues to
>>> melt, the planet's albedo will continue to drop. As a result, we may
>>> soon reach a tipping point that will wreak havoc with the Earth's
>>> climate for decades if not centuries no matter how hard we try to stop
>>> it.
>>>
>>> "ItοΏ½s also possible to posit a sort of secular PascalοΏ½s Wager here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>>>>
>>>>> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>>>>
>>> The recession has undoubtedly reduced the amount of CO2 emissions
>>> generated by industry. However, deforestation continues so man's
>>> contribution to climate change is ongoing. As arctic ice continues to
>>> melt, the planet's albedo will continue to drop. As a result, we may
>>> soon reach a tipping point that will wreak havoc with the Earth's
>>> climate for decades if not centuries no matter how hard we try to stop
>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>> If we clean up our act and it turns out the deniers are right, we get
>>> renewable energy and a cleaner world to share with our fellow creatures
>>> and pass on to our children.
>>>
>>> If we do nothing and Al Gore is right, weοΏ½re fucked." - Author unknown
>>> If we clean up our act and it turns out the deniers are right, we get
>>> renewable energy and a cleaner world to share with our fellow creatures
>>> and pass on to our children.
>>>
>>> to me.
>>
>> What are YOU doing personally, buttercup?
>
> Ah, the favourite whine of the beleagured corporate apologist.
>>
>> And what have the scientists done to develop this mysterious "renewable
>> energy" that can be utilized on the same scale that fossil fuels are
>> doing right now.
>>
>> Obama's green energy companies are failing, one after another. So much
>> for the stimulus money that the taxpayer AND YOUR DESCENDANTS paid for.
>
> Tesla just paid off their half a billion government loan--nine years
> early. The sucess rate of government underwritten green startups is
> better than that of startups in general.
>
> Stop whining at us, little corporate whore.
.
>>
>> What are YOU doing personally, buttercup?
>
> Ah, the favourite whine of the beleagured corporate apologist.
>>
>> And what have the scientists done to develop this mysterious "renewable
>> energy" that can be utilized on the same scale that fossil fuels are
>> doing right now.
>>
>> Obama's green energy companies are failing, one after another. So much
>> for the stimulus money that the taxpayer AND YOUR DESCENDANTS paid for.
>
> Tesla just paid off their half a billion government loan--nine years
> early. The sucess rate of government underwritten green startups is
> better than that of startups in general.
>
> Stop whining at us, little corporate whore.
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 10:45:26 AM5/23/13
to
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 10:50:36 AM5/23/13
to
The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the decade
of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will
continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in
the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains
groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is
not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
the most recent data."
of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will
continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in
the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains
groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is
not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
the most recent data."
"WeοΏ½re now well into the second decade of the pause,οΏ½ said Benny Peiser,
director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we donοΏ½t see
convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become
clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for
some scientists could be very serious."
director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we donοΏ½t see
convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become
clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for
some scientists could be very serious."
Man of Mind
May 23, 2013, 10:52:51 AM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 9:50 AM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:54:31 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
*>cricket.wav<*
>
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:54:31 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>
>> On 5/23/2013 8:37 AM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:13:33 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>> On 5/23/2013 8:37 AM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/23/2013 7:37 AM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:32:35 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 4:28 PM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:52:55 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 2:50 PM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
.........
>>>> On 5/23/2013 7:37 AM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:32:35 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 4:28 PM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:52:55 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2013 2:50 PM, surely bollocks whined desperately:
Zepp
May 23, 2013, 10:58:22 AM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:37:22 -0500, Dakota wrote:
>> climate experts and works at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She
>> argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an
>> important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water
>> temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
>>
>> "The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the
>> models may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of
>> warmer in the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not
>> surprised."
>>
>> "When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the
>> climate cooled," Curry said. "The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from
>> argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an
>> important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water
>> temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
>>
>> "The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the
>> models may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of
>> warmer in the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not
>> surprised."
>>
>> "When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the
>> warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to
>> flip in the next few years."
>>
>> Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
>> scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when
>> considering global temperature trends.
>>
>> "Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of
>> the global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
>>
>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the
>> decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the
>> warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have
>> continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being
>> clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. The
>> ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period
>> for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are
>> regularly updated to take account of the most recent data."
>>
>> "We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny
>> flip in the next few years."
>>
>> Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
>> scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when
>> considering global temperature trends.
>>
>> "Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of
>> the global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
>>
>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the
>> decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the
>> warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have
>> continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being
>> clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. The
>> ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period
>> for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are
>> regularly updated to take account of the most recent data."
>>
>> Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we don’t
several million years away.
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 11:05:56 AM5/23/13
to
that the politicians for whom you voted will pass. They sock it to the
energy cos. and the energy cos. pass it on to you.
> How about you, meadow muffin? What are you doing personally?
man can do nothing to prevent it, I have done nothing. I do drive less
than 2,000 miles per yr. but this has nothing to do with the issue.
>> And what have the scientists done to develop this mysterious "renewable
>> energy" that can be utilized on the same scale that fossil fuels are doing
>> right now.
>>
> Between the GOP (Greedy Oil Promoter) and the Tea Party (Texas Tea as
> in the Beverly Hillbillies Theme song) idiots in Congress, funding has
> been reduced dramatically so progress has been slow but steady.
around town, heat/cool our homes, run our computers....
>> Obama's green energy companies are failing, one after another. So much for
>> the stimulus money that the taxpayer AND YOUR DESCENDANTS paid for.
>>
> The green energy companies haven't received .01% of the amount the
> government shovels into the pockets of the oil and coal industries in
> the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and reduced regulation.
is like pissing money away to sub-Saharan Africa or the govt. educational
systems. No bang for the buck.
> If the tax payers and my descendants already paid for it, what are you
> whining about? They'll be paying for Bush's wars for decades.
Just glad I lived thru its glory days.
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 11:08:55 AM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:53:08 -0500, Man of Mind wrote:
ttp://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-
Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years
By: Mark Johnson, newsnet5.com
CLEVELAND - There are three agencies around the globe that are the keepers
of global temperature numbers. The first is NASA. The second is the
University of Huntsville in Alabama (satellite temperature records). The
third is the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, the UK Met,
as it is known.
ttp://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-
Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years
By: Mark Johnson, newsnet5.com
CLEVELAND - There are three agencies around the globe that are the keepers
of global temperature numbers. The first is NASA. The second is the
University of Huntsville in Alabama (satellite temperature records). The
third is the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, the UK Met,
as it is known.
Last week, the UK Met released its latest global temperature data to the
world. It shows that the Earth has not warmed in 15 years. The warming
ceased after the great super El Nino of 1998.
world. It shows that the Earth has not warmed in 15 years. The warming
ceased after the great super El Nino of 1998.
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 11:24:11 AM5/23/13
to
experts and works at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She argued it is
becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in
rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in
the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
"The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models
may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of warmer in the
last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not surprised."
"When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the
climate cooled," Curry said. "The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to
becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in
rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in
the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
"The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models
may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of warmer in the
last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not surprised."
"When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the
cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the
next few years."
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when considering
global temperature trends.
"Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of the
global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
next few years."
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when considering
global temperature trends.
"Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of the
global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the decade
of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will
continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in
the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains
groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is
not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
the most recent data."
"We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser,
of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will
continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in
the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains
groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is
not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
the most recent data."
director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we don’t see
convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become
clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for
some scientists could be very serious."
clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for
some scientists could be very serious."
>>>>>>> smoothing in black.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the decade
>>>>>> of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will
>>>>>> continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
>>>>>> trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in
>>>>>> the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains
>>>>>> groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is
>>>>>> not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
>>>>>> the most recent data."
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, even your own site refutes your primate posturings..
>>>>>
>>>>> Your embarrassment is noted..
>
> *>cricket.wav<*
.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the decade
>>>>>> of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will
>>>>>> continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
>>>>>> trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in
>>>>>> the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains
>>>>>> groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is
>>>>>> not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
>>>>>> the most recent data."
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, even your own site refutes your primate posturings..
>>>>>
>>>>> Your embarrassment is noted..
>
> *>cricket.wav<*
Zepp
May 23, 2013, 11:54:56 AM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:44:32 -0400, Sharia Rocks wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:01:28 +0000 (UTC), Zepp wrote:
>
>
>
> Cite those that have been successful.
For starters, Tesla. Didn't you read the article?
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:01:28 +0000 (UTC), Zepp wrote:
>
>
>
> Cite those that have been successful.
You can find a lot more here: http://www.sba.gov/content/mentoring-green-
startups-and-creating-jobs
>>>>> climate experts and works at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
>>>>> She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play
>>>>> an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year
>>>>> water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the
>>>>> models may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of
>>>>> warmer in the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not
>>>>> surprised."
>>>>>
>>>>> "When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970,
>>>>> the climate cooled," Curry said. "The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back
>>>>> She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play
>>>>> an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year
>>>>> water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the
>>>>> models may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of
>>>>> warmer in the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not
>>>>> surprised."
>>>>>
>>>>> "When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970,
>>>>> from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought
>>>>> likely to flip in the next few years."
>>>>>
>>>>> Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
>>>>> scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when
>>>>> considering global temperature trends.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of
>>>>> the global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
>>>>>
>>>>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the
>>>>> decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the
>>>>> warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we
>>>>> have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of
>>>>> 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going
>>>>> back to 1850. The ten year projection remains groundbreaking
>>>>> science. The complete period for the original projection is not over
>>>>> yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
>>>>> the most recent data."
>>>>>
>>>>> "We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny
>>>>> likely to flip in the next few years."
>>>>>
>>>>> Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
>>>>> scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when
>>>>> considering global temperature trends.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of
>>>>> the global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
>>>>>
>>>>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the
>>>>> decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the
>>>>> warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we
>>>>> have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of
>>>>> 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going
>>>>> back to 1850. The ten year projection remains groundbreaking
>>>>> science. The complete period for the original projection is not over
>>>>> yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
>>>>> the most recent data."
>>>>>
>>>>> Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we
>>>>> don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will
>>>>>> can see the result of that smoothing in black.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>>>>>
>>>> The recession has undoubtedly reduced the amount of CO2 emissions
>>>> generated by industry. However, deforestation continues so man's
>>>> contribution to climate change is ongoing. As arctic ice continues to
>>>> melt, the planet's albedo will continue to drop. As a result, we may
>>>> soon reach a tipping point that will wreak havoc with the Earth's
>>>> climate for decades if not centuries no matter how hard we try to
>>>> stop it.
>>>>
>>>> "It’s also possible to posit a sort of secular Pascal’s Wager here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>>>>>
>>>> The recession has undoubtedly reduced the amount of CO2 emissions
>>>> generated by industry. However, deforestation continues so man's
>>>> contribution to climate change is ongoing. As arctic ice continues to
>>>> melt, the planet's albedo will continue to drop. As a result, we may
>>>> soon reach a tipping point that will wreak havoc with the Earth's
>>>> climate for decades if not centuries no matter how hard we try to
>>>> stop it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we clean up our act and it turns out the deniers are right, we get
>>>> renewable energy and a cleaner world to share with our fellow
>>>> creatures and pass on to our children.
>>>>
>>>> If we do nothing and Al Gore is right, we’re fucked." - Author
>>>> If we clean up our act and it turns out the deniers are right, we get
>>>> renewable energy and a cleaner world to share with our fellow
>>>> creatures and pass on to our children.
>>>>
Dakota
May 23, 2013, 12:36:17 PM5/23/13
to
vehicles will replace gas and diesel powered vehicles. Don't thing so?
Hows many coal powered locomotives do you see these days?
The simple process of planting more trees will help reduce cooling
costs while also reducing CO2 levels in the air.
Improvements in heating and cooling efficiency along with improved
insulation will reduce our energy needs also.
Geothermal energy is already being used to reduce heating and cooling
demands for electricity.
The worldwide growth of computing spurred by the Internet will
continue to require more and more energy to process the huge amounts
of data. Fiber optic cable will be needed to reduce the energy needed
to transport the data as will green sources of energy to prevent the
early depletion of the world's petroleum resources.
If the USA would adopt the nuclear energy policies that have allowed
France to drastically reduce it's demand for petroleum based fuel to
generate electric power for decades, we'd be able to do the same.
It's been less than 110 years since the first successful airplane
flight was made. Less than 70 years later, man walked on the Moon.
Gasoline powered vehicles came a few decades earlier. They internal
combustion technology they used is long overdue for replacement.
The first commercial cell phone call was made less than 30 years ago.
I was working as a field tech rep for Motorola at the time. Some of us
were transferred into the cellular group as Cellular Field Engineer in
'84 when I made my first cell phone call using a cell phone that was
about the size of four lunch boxes stacked on top or one another and
weighed twenty pounds or so. Today's smart phone technology makes it
clear how far science has led to advances in technology in that brief
amount of time.
You Luddites have always been opposed to technological progress yet
you take advantage of all the technology that science has provided.
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 2:02:02 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:36:17 -0500, Dakota wrote:
> On 5/23/2013 10:05 AM, Sharia Rocks wrote:
>> OK, so cite some of this steady progress. Just what will transport us
>> around town, heat/cool our homes, run our computers....
>>
> As wind and solar power improvements continue, non-polluting electric
> vehicles will replace gas and diesel powered vehicles. Don't thing so?
> Hows many coal powered locomotives do you see these days?
Wind and solar will be sufficient for homo sapiens -- 7 billion currently
> On 5/23/2013 10:05 AM, Sharia Rocks wrote:
>> OK, so cite some of this steady progress. Just what will transport us
>> around town, heat/cool our homes, run our computers....
>>
> As wind and solar power improvements continue, non-polluting electric
> vehicles will replace gas and diesel powered vehicles. Don't thing so?
> Hows many coal powered locomotives do you see these days?
and growing? Aha electric vehicles. Batteries? What is used to charge
the batteries? What source?
> The simple process of planting more trees will help reduce cooling
> costs while also reducing CO2 levels in the air.
but still need to crank up the old AC. And it's established that trees
release terpenes and isoprenes which contribute to smog.
Come on, you're using the same old greenie arguments. I want to hear
something meaningful and substantial.
> Improvements in heating and cooling efficiency along with improved
> insulation will reduce our energy needs also.
> Geothermal energy is already being used to reduce heating and cooling
> demands for electricity.
> The worldwide growth of computing spurred by the Internet will
> continue to require more and more energy to process the huge amounts
> of data. Fiber optic cable will be needed to reduce the energy needed
> to transport the data as will green sources of energy to prevent the
> early depletion of the world's petroleum resources.
solar, geoT, and batteries.
Those sources are limited for our burgeoning population.
> If the USA would adopt the nuclear energy policies that have allowed
> France to drastically reduce it's demand for petroleum based fuel to
> generate electric power for decades, we'd be able to do the same.
reasons.
> It's been less than 110 years since the first successful airplane
> flight was made. Less than 70 years later, man walked on the Moon.
exploration.
> Gasoline powered vehicles came a few decades earlier. They internal
> combustion technology they used is long overdue for replacement.
> The first commercial cell phone call was made less than 30 years ago.
> I was working as a field tech rep for Motorola at the time. Some of us
> were transferred into the cellular group as Cellular Field Engineer in
> '84 when I made my first cell phone call using a cell phone that was
> about the size of four lunch boxes stacked on top or one another and
> weighed twenty pounds or so. Today's smart phone technology makes it
> clear how far science has led to advances in technology in that brief
> amount of time.
> You Luddites have always been opposed to technological progress yet
> you take advantage of all the technology that science has provided.
disciplines. Those are the left's bailiwick.
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 2:07:16 PM5/23/13
to
Well uh, one co. repaid its loan.
That's nice.
So tell me about electric cars.
I assume that they're powered by rechargeable batteries.
What is the recharging source?
>>>>>> climate experts and works at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
>>>>>> She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play
>>>>>> an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year
>>>>>> water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the
>>>>>> models may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of
>>>>>> warmer in the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not
>>>>>> surprised."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970,
>>>>>> the climate cooled," Curry said. "The Pacific cycle οΏ½flippedοΏ½ back
>>>>>> She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play
>>>>>> an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year
>>>>>> water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the
>>>>>> models may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of
>>>>>> warmer in the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not
>>>>>> surprised."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970,
>>>>>> from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought
>>>>>> likely to flip in the next few years."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
>>>>>> scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when
>>>>>> considering global temperature trends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of
>>>>>> the global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the
>>>>>> decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the
>>>>>> warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we
>>>>>> have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of
>>>>>> 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going
>>>>>> back to 1850. The ten year projection remains groundbreaking
>>>>>> science. The complete period for the original projection is not over
>>>>>> yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
>>>>>> the most recent data."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "WeοΏ½re now well into the second decade of the pause,οΏ½ said Benny
>>>>>> likely to flip in the next few years."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some
>>>>>> scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when
>>>>>> considering global temperature trends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of
>>>>>> the global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the
>>>>>> decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the
>>>>>> warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we
>>>>>> have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of
>>>>>> 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going
>>>>>> back to 1850. The ten year projection remains groundbreaking
>>>>>> science. The complete period for the original projection is not over
>>>>>> yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of
>>>>>> the most recent data."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we
>>>>>> donοΏ½t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will
>>>>>>> can see the result of that smoothing in black.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The recession has undoubtedly reduced the amount of CO2 emissions
>>>>> generated by industry. However, deforestation continues so man's
>>>>> contribution to climate change is ongoing. As arctic ice continues to
>>>>> melt, the planet's albedo will continue to drop. As a result, we may
>>>>> soon reach a tipping point that will wreak havoc with the Earth's
>>>>> climate for decades if not centuries no matter how hard we try to
>>>>> stop it.
>>>>>
>>>>> "ItοΏ½s also possible to posit a sort of secular PascalοΏ½s Wager here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try not to choke on that fact, this time around, m'kay?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The recession has undoubtedly reduced the amount of CO2 emissions
>>>>> generated by industry. However, deforestation continues so man's
>>>>> contribution to climate change is ongoing. As arctic ice continues to
>>>>> melt, the planet's albedo will continue to drop. As a result, we may
>>>>> soon reach a tipping point that will wreak havoc with the Earth's
>>>>> climate for decades if not centuries no matter how hard we try to
>>>>> stop it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we clean up our act and it turns out the deniers are right, we get
>>>>> renewable energy and a cleaner world to share with our fellow
>>>>> creatures and pass on to our children.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we do nothing and Al Gore is right, weοΏ½re fucked." - Author
>>>>> If we clean up our act and it turns out the deniers are right, we get
>>>>> renewable energy and a cleaner world to share with our fellow
>>>>> creatures and pass on to our children.
>>>>>
>>>>> unknown to me.
>>>>
>>>> What are YOU doing personally, buttercup?
>>>
>>> Ah, the favourite whine of the beleagured corporate apologist.
>>>>
>>>> And what have the scientists done to develop this mysterious
>>>> "renewable energy" that can be utilized on the same scale that fossil
>>>> fuels are doing right now.
>>>>
>>>> Obama's green energy companies are failing, one after another. So
>>>> much for the stimulus money that the taxpayer AND YOUR DESCENDANTS
>>>> paid for.
>>>
>>> Tesla just paid off their half a billion government loan--nine years
>>> early. The sucess rate of government underwritten green startups is
>>> better than that of startups in general.
>>>
>>> Stop whining at us, little corporate whore.
>> .
.
>>>>
>>>> What are YOU doing personally, buttercup?
>>>
>>> Ah, the favourite whine of the beleagured corporate apologist.
>>>>
>>>> And what have the scientists done to develop this mysterious
>>>> "renewable energy" that can be utilized on the same scale that fossil
>>>> fuels are doing right now.
>>>>
>>>> Obama's green energy companies are failing, one after another. So
>>>> much for the stimulus money that the taxpayer AND YOUR DESCENDANTS
>>>> paid for.
>>>
>>> Tesla just paid off their half a billion government loan--nine years
>>> early. The sucess rate of government underwritten green startups is
>>> better than that of startups in general.
>>>
>>> Stop whining at us, little corporate whore.
>> .
Zepp
May 23, 2013, 3:03:39 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:02:02 -0400, Sharia Rocks wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:36:17 -0500, Dakota wrote:
>
>> On 5/23/2013 10:05 AM, Sharia Rocks wrote:
>
>>> OK, so cite some of this steady progress. Just what will transport us
>>> around town, heat/cool our homes, run our computers....
>>>
>> As wind and solar power improvements continue, non-polluting electric
>> vehicles will replace gas and diesel powered vehicles. Don't thing so?
>> Hows many coal powered locomotives do you see these days?
>
> Wind and solar will be sufficient for homo sapiens -- 7 billion
> currently and growing? Aha electric vehicles. Batteries? What is used
> to charge the batteries? What source?
>
>> The simple process of planting more trees will help reduce cooling
>> costs while also reducing CO2 levels in the air.
>
> Well, I personally planted 1,000 trees (1976-84) and created a
> mini-forest,
> but still need to crank up the old AC. And it's established that trees
> release terpenes and isoprenes which contribute to smog.
Terpenes are isoprenes, and the vast majority, when released, seed clouds
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:36:17 -0500, Dakota wrote:
>
>> On 5/23/2013 10:05 AM, Sharia Rocks wrote:
>
>>> OK, so cite some of this steady progress. Just what will transport us
>>> around town, heat/cool our homes, run our computers....
>>>
>> As wind and solar power improvements continue, non-polluting electric
>> vehicles will replace gas and diesel powered vehicles. Don't thing so?
>> Hows many coal powered locomotives do you see these days?
>
> Wind and solar will be sufficient for homo sapiens -- 7 billion
> currently and growing? Aha electric vehicles. Batteries? What is used
> to charge the batteries? What source?
>
>> The simple process of planting more trees will help reduce cooling
>> costs while also reducing CO2 levels in the air.
>
> Well, I personally planted 1,000 trees (1976-84) and created a
> mini-forest,
> but still need to crank up the old AC. And it's established that trees
> release terpenes and isoprenes which contribute to smog.
and precipitate out. You need only take air quality readings in and over
the boreal forests to determine their impact on air quality is minimal,
even in regions surrounded by millions of acres of nothing but conifers.
>
> Come on, you're using the same old greenie arguments. I want to hear
> something meaningful and substantial.
>
>
>> Improvements in heating and cooling efficiency along with improved
>> insulation will reduce our energy needs also.
>
> But what are the improvements that they are developing?
>
What ones do you want to hear about?
> Come on, you're using the same old greenie arguments. I want to hear
> something meaningful and substantial.
>
>
>> Improvements in heating and cooling efficiency along with improved
>> insulation will reduce our energy needs also.
>
> But what are the improvements that they are developing?
>
>> Geothermal energy is already being used to reduce heating and cooling
>> demands for electricity.
>
> Can this be applied on a large scale?
>
electrical distribution.
>> The worldwide growth of computing spurred by the Internet will continue
>> to require more and more energy to process the huge amounts of data.
>> Fiber optic cable will be needed to reduce the energy needed to
>> transport the data as will green sources of energy to prevent the early
>> depletion of the world's petroleum resources.
>
> The green sources haven't been identified yet, in your answer, viz.:
> wind, solar, geoT, and batteries.
>
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 3:55:08 PM5/23/13
to
>>> Geothermal energy is already being used to reduce heating and cooling
>>> demands for electricity.
>>
>> Can this be applied on a large scale?
>>
> No. But then, large scale itself is efficient when it comes to
> electrical distribution.
Zepp
May 23, 2013, 5:09:57 PM5/23/13
to
to..."
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 5:32:25 PM5/23/13
to
miniscule segment of the population.
Hell, that's what we've been saying all along.
Windmills, solar panels, GeoT ain't ever gonna power up Chicago. Might be
OK for Bumfuck Wisconsin and places like that....
Zepp
May 23, 2013, 6:31:46 PM5/23/13
to
sources. Horribly inefficient. 1920s technology.
>
> Hell, that's what we've been saying all along.
>
> Windmills, solar panels, GeoT ain't ever gonna power up Chicago. Might
> be OK for Bumfuck Wisconsin and places like that....
I would settle for Chicago reducing demand on the grid by 50%. That, at
> Hell, that's what we've been saying all along.
>
> Windmills, solar panels, GeoT ain't ever gonna power up Chicago. Might
> be OK for Bumfuck Wisconsin and places like that....
least, is feasible.
Sharia Rocks
May 23, 2013, 9:21:41 PM5/23/13
to
How many more times do I need to axt you?
>> Hell, that's what we've been saying all along.
>>
>> Windmills, solar panels, GeoT ain't ever gonna power up Chicago. Might
>> be OK for Bumfuck Wisconsin and places like that....
>
> I would settle for Chicago reducing demand on the grid by 50%. That, at
> least, is feasible.
And if you do, how will you approach Taiwan, India, and mainland China in
that same regard?
Zepp
May 23, 2013, 9:31:47 PM5/23/13
to
Steve
May 23, 2013, 9:51:17 PM5/23/13
to
>> Hell, that's what we've been saying all along.
>>
>> Windmills, solar panels, GeoT ain't ever gonna power up Chicago. Might
>> be OK for Bumfuck Wisconsin and places like that....
>
>I would settle for Chicago reducing demand on the grid by 50%. That, at
>least, is feasible.
fantasies..
Sharia Rocks
May 24, 2013, 8:13:18 AM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 01:31:47 +0000 (UTC), Zepp wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:21:41 -0400, Sharia Rocks wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:31:46 +0000 (UTC), Zepp wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> No. But then, large scale itself is efficient when it comes to
>>>>>>> electrical distribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry. That should have read "large scale is INefficient when it
>>>>> comes to..."
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so you're acknowledging that Green will be fine but for only a
>>>> miniscule segment of the population.
>>>
>>> No, I'm talking about the existing grid with its centralized power
>>> sources. Horribly inefficient. 1920s technology.
>>
>> Detail your plan to improve what we have now.
>>
>> How many more times do I need to axt you?
>
> Are you an electrical systems engineer? Or just another Usenet blowhard?
I am a lay person who is asking how the grid can be utilized with green
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:21:41 -0400, Sharia Rocks wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:31:46 +0000 (UTC), Zepp wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> No. But then, large scale itself is efficient when it comes to
>>>>>>> electrical distribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry. That should have read "large scale is INefficient when it
>>>>> comes to..."
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so you're acknowledging that Green will be fine but for only a
>>>> miniscule segment of the population.
>>>
>>> No, I'm talking about the existing grid with its centralized power
>>> sources. Horribly inefficient. 1920s technology.
>>
>> Detail your plan to improve what we have now.
>>
>> How many more times do I need to axt you?
>
> Are you an electrical systems engineer? Or just another Usenet blowhard?
resources.
Which word don't you understand?
>>>> Hell, that's what we've been saying all along.
>>>>
>>>> Windmills, solar panels, GeoT ain't ever gonna power up Chicago.
>>>> Might be OK for Bumfuck Wisconsin and places like that....
>>>
>>> I would settle for Chicago reducing demand on the grid by 50%. That,
>>> at least, is feasible.
>>
>> Heh. Lots of luck with that. Tell us your game plan to pull that off.
>> And if you do, how will you approach Taiwan, India, and mainland China
>> in that same regard?
And by the way, you never did answer the question as to what will recharge
our Tesla batteries. I mean, when we plug in to the charging station, what
will supply the juice, as coal does now?
Don't smoke; eat well; exercise; die anyway
May 24, 2013, 8:19:29 AM5/24/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:51:17 -0400, Steve wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:31:46 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:32:25 -0400, Sharia Rocks wrote:
>>>
>>> Windmills, solar panels, GeoT ain't ever gonna power up Chicago. Might
>>> be OK for Bumfuck Wisconsin and places like that....
>>
>>I would settle for Chicago reducing demand on the grid by 50%. That, at
>>least, is feasible.
>
> Not even remotely feasible. Zepp is a moron with wild-eyed
> fantasies..
Man, you ain't shittin'. Liberals live in a fantasy world and buy into
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:31:46 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:32:25 -0400, Sharia Rocks wrote:
>>>
>>> Windmills, solar panels, GeoT ain't ever gonna power up Chicago. Might
>>> be OK for Bumfuck Wisconsin and places like that....
>>
>>I would settle for Chicago reducing demand on the grid by 50%. That, at
>>least, is feasible.
>
> Not even remotely feasible. Zepp is a moron with wild-eyed
> fantasies..
fallacies advanced by people like Obama and Bonehead Pelosi and for that
reason alone should be disenfranchised from voting.
Moonbats is a good term for 'em.
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 11:11:34 AM5/24/13
to
You're just a Glenn Beck fan who hopes that by asking questions you
couldn't answer yourself you can defuse comment.
>
>>> And if you do, how will you approach Taiwan, India, and mainland China
>>> in that same regard?
>
> More crickets.
>
> And by the way, you never did answer the question as to what will
> recharge our Tesla batteries. I mean, when we plug in to the charging
> station, what will supply the juice, as coal does now?
Well, you will be happy to learn that more and more power from coal is
>>> And if you do, how will you approach Taiwan, India, and mainland China
>>> in that same regard?
>
> More crickets.
>
> And by the way, you never did answer the question as to what will
> recharge our Tesla batteries. I mean, when we plug in to the charging
> station, what will supply the juice, as coal does now?
being supplanted by other sources.
Steve
May 24, 2013, 11:25:28 AM5/24/13
to
nonsense...
>You're just a Glenn Beck fan who hopes that by asking questions you
>couldn't answer yourself you can defuse comment.
them...
Sharia Rocks
May 24, 2013, 12:02:43 PM5/24/13
to
person asking genuine questions. No need to provide technical jargon that
I wouldn't understand anyway. Just an answer that would be provided to
ordinary joe citizen.
Or are you just a dreamer who fantasizes about a pollution-free planet,
compatible with the 21st century lifestyle we've been living.
That's a trademark of liberals, you know.
Dreaming.
>>>> And if you do, how will you approach Taiwan, India, and mainland China
>>>> in that same regard?
>>
>> More crickets.
>>
>> And by the way, you never did answer the question as to what will
>> recharge our Tesla batteries. I mean, when we plug in to the charging
>> station, what will supply the juice, as coal does now?
>
> Well, you will be happy to learn that more and more power from coal is
> being supplanted by other sources.
Cite here =>
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 2:02:58 PM5/24/13
to
unusual about that.
How to improve it? Well, look here: http://energy.gov/oe/technology-
development/smart-grid
>
> Or are you just a dreamer who fantasizes about a pollution-free planet,
> compatible with the 21st century lifestyle we've been living.
>
Now who's making unsupported claims?
> Or are you just a dreamer who fantasizes about a pollution-free planet,
> compatible with the 21st century lifestyle we've been living.
>
Sharia Rocks
May 24, 2013, 4:13:57 PM5/24/13
to
Actually, I was inquiring about powering the grid via green resources.
>> Or are you just a dreamer who fantasizes about a pollution-free planet,
>> compatible with the 21st century lifestyle we've been living.
>>
> Now who's making unsupported claims?
renewable, green energy bases.
>> That's a trademark of liberals, you know.
>>
>> Dreaming.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> And if you do, how will you approach Taiwan, India, and mainland
>>>>>> China in that same regard?
>>>>
>>>> More crickets.
>>>>
>>>> And by the way, you never did answer the question as to what will
>>>> recharge our Tesla batteries. I mean, when we plug in to the charging
>>>> station, what will supply the juice, as coal does now?
>>>
>>> Well, you will be happy to learn that more and more power from coal is
>>> being supplanted by other sources.
>>
>> Other than nuclear which scares a lot of liberals, what other sources?
>>
>> Cite here =>
Steve
May 24, 2013, 4:32:02 PM5/24/13
to
the demand.. but hey, it does cut the number of jobs required to run
it.
0 new messages