Gore: Polar ice may vanish in 5-7 years - And if they Don't?
vict0r
COPENHAGEN (AP) - New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be
nearly ice-free in the summertime as early as 2014, Al Gore said Monday at
the U.N. climate conference. This new projection, following several years of
dramatic retreat by polar sea ice, suggests that the ice cap may nearly
vanish in the summer much sooner than the year 2030, as was forecast by a
U.S. government agency eight months ago.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hGkx5ED3BxWScLRJuzhDFRm9wAzwD9CJACDG0
---
If the poloar ice caps do not vanish in 5-7 years then can we say that this
new computer modeling is bullsh|t? Or will this be forgotten then as the
alarmists move on to another fake crisis?
What if the ice caps actually increase? What can we say about Gore and this
computer modeling then?
Sueki Tartridge
> COPENHAGEN (AP) - New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be
> nearly ice-free in the summertime as early as 2014, Al Gore said Monday at
> the U.N. climate conference. This new projection, following several years of
> dramatic retreat by polar sea ice, suggests that the ice cap may nearly
> vanish in the summer much sooner than the year 2030, as was forecast by a
> U.S. government agency eight months ago.
>
>
> ---
>
> If the poloar ice caps do not vanish in 5-7 years then can we say that this
> new computer modeling is bullsh|t? Or will this be forgotten then as the
> alarmists move on to another fake crisis?
>
> What if the ice caps actually increase? What can we say about Gore and this
> computer modeling then?
Won't matter. By then Dr. Gore will be thumbing his nose at the useful
dupes laughing all the way to the swiss bank.
Clairbear
news:294b344d-ca73-4122...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
It's not all that carbon that is the problem it that million degree core of
the earth thing that algore was talking about
Killing, Inc.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aww, take it easy on the guy.
Professor Gore only missed it by ~990,000 degrees. Actually since he
said the plural "millions," he missed it by at least that much. LOL!
What a dumbfuck!
Democrats and other leftist wingnuts are easily the dumbest animals on
the planet.
Jim Alder
04.dc1.easynews.com:
> If the poloar ice caps do not vanish in 5-7 years then can we say that this
> new computer modeling is bullsh|t?
We can say it NOW!
> What if the ice caps actually increase? What can we say about Gore and this
> computer modeling then?
The same thing we said yesterday.
--
My girlfriend asked me "Have you been having
sex behind my back?"
I said "Who in the hell did you think it was?"
Kevin Cunningham
> "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote innews:vaAVm.354312$Xw3.237095@en-nntp-
> 04.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> > If the poloar ice caps do not vanish in 5-7 years then can we say that this
> > new computer modeling is bullsh|t?
>
> We can say it NOW!
>
> > What if the ice caps actually increase? What can we say about Gore and this
> > computer modeling then?
>
> The same thing we said yesterday.
>
> --
Hey, Alder, once again, show me any paper that says that global
warming doesn't exist. I can show hundreds of papers that say it does
exist. See, scum bag, you have to prove that all scientists lie
constantly, kinda' hard. But you set the goal high.
So why don't you and your scum bag buddies either produce or shut
up?
No facts, no proof, must be a conservative.
Kevin Cunningham
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:49:05 -0800 (PST), Kevin Cunningham
> Cooling and warming has been a constant cycle for as long as this old
> Earth has been orbiting the Sun. The big question (the only question)
> is how much the activities of mankind are accelerating the process, if
> at all. Makes you wonder what the hell the natives were doing just
> 10,000 years ago that made many Glaciers in large parts of North
> America to retreat North, playing a large part in the formation of the
> Great Lakes. Those damn cooking fires!!
And once again, the right wing is called on for facts and they don't
have any. No facts, that's the right wing for ya'!
So once again, moron, can you come up with a scientific paper that
agrees with you? Yeah, I know, you agree with you but does any
scientist?
The moronic right wing, they agree with themselves. Wow, how unique...
President O Debacle
better than agreeing with the biggest loser algorejr.
vict0r
--------------------------------
"Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural
variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the
time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a
causal linkage between the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
and the observed climate changes during the 20th century _cannot be
unequivocally established_. The fact that the magnitude of the observed
warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in
climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does _not_ constitute
proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural
variability on the decadal to century time scale."
----------------------------------
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy
Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:zBkG1Sloxv8J:www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/ClimateChangeScience.pdf+"An+Analysis+of+Some+Key+Questions"+climate&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
lab~rat >:-)
>On Dec 14, 8:26ÔøΩpm, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote innews:vaAVm.354312$Xw3.237095@en-nntp-
>> 04.dc1.easynews.com:
>>
>> > If the poloar ice caps do not vanish in 5-7 years then can we say that this
>> > new computer modeling is bullsh|t?
>>
>> ÔøΩ ÔøΩ We can say it NOW!
>>
>> > What if the ice caps actually increase? ÔøΩWhat can we say about Gore and this
>> > computer modeling then?
>>
>> ÔøΩ ÔøΩThe same thing we said yesterday.
>>
>> --
>
>Hey, Alder, once again, show me any paper that says that global
>warming doesn't exist. I can show hundreds of papers that say it does
>exist. See, scum bag, you have to prove that all scientists lie
>constantly, kinda' hard. But you set the goal high.
>
>So why don't you and your scum bag buddies either produce or shut
>up?
>
>No facts, no proof, must be a conservative.
Here ya go, moron:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
lab~rat >:-)
<terml...@democracy.com> puked:
>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:49:05 -0800 (PST), Kevin Cunningham
><sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 14, 8:26ÔøΩpm, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>> "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote innews:vaAVm.354312$Xw3.237095@en-nntp-
>>> 04.dc1.easynews.com:
>>>
>>> > If the poloar ice caps do not vanish in 5-7 years then can we say that this
>>> > new computer modeling is bullsh|t?
>>>
>>> ÔøΩ ÔøΩ We can say it NOW!
>>>
>>> > What if the ice caps actually increase? ÔøΩWhat can we say about Gore and this
>>> > computer modeling then?
>>>
>>> ÔøΩ ÔøΩThe same thing we said yesterday.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>Hey, Alder, once again, show me any paper that says that global
>>warming doesn't exist. I can show hundreds of papers that say it does
>>exist. See, scum bag, you have to prove that all scientists lie
>>constantly, kinda' hard. But you set the goal high.
>>
>>So why don't you and your scum bag buddies either produce or shut
>>up?
>>
>>No facts, no proof, must be a conservative.
>
>
>Climate Change is what 'exists', and has for about 4 Billion years.
>Cooling and warming has been a constant cycle for as long as this old
>Earth has been orbiting the Sun. The big question (the only question)
>is how much the activities of mankind are accelerating the process, if
>at all. Makes you wonder what the hell the natives were doing just
>10,000 years ago that made many Glaciers in large parts of North
>America to retreat North, playing a large part in the formation of the
>Great Lakes. Those damn cooking fires!!
Here's the question, would climate change matter if it didn't mean
votes and big bucks? Of course not.
Every last person involved with it is after one or the other or both.
Or useful idiots of those that are...
Jim Alder
> Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>> "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote:
>>>
>>> > If the polar ice caps do not vanish in 5-7 years then can we say that
this
>>> > new computer modeling is bullsh|t?
>>>
>>> � � We can say it NOW!
>>>
>>> > What if the ice caps actually increase? �What can we say about Gore and
this
>>> > computer modeling then?
>>>
>>> � �The same thing we said yesterday.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>Hey, Alder, once again, show me any paper that says that global
>>warming doesn't exist. I can show hundreds of papers that say it does
>>exist. See, scum bag, you have to prove that all scientists lie
>>constantly, kinda' hard. But you set the goal high.
>>
>>So why don't you and your scum bag buddies either produce or shut up?
>>
>>No facts, no proof, must be a conservative.
Argues science by calling me a "scumbag". Must be a Liberal.
> Climate Change is what 'exists', and has for about 4 Billion years.
> Cooling and warming has been a constant cycle for as long as this old
> Earth has been orbiting the Sun. The big question (the only question)
> is how much the activities of mankind are accelerating the process, if
> at all. Makes you wonder what the hell the natives were doing just
> 10,000 years ago that made many Glaciers in large parts of North
> America to retreat North, playing a large part in the formation of the
> Great Lakes. Those damn cooking fires!!
A few hundred years ago, they tell me that Iceland was farm country. I
wonder how the polar bears survived?
Jim Alder
> E. Barry Bruyea <terml...@democracy.com> puked:
>> Kevin Cunningham sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>> "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > If the polar ice caps do not vanish in 5-7 years then can we say that
this
>>>> > new computer modeling is bullsh|t?
>>>>
>>>> We can say it NOW!
>>>>
>>>> > What if the ice caps actually increase? What can we say about Gore and
this
>>>> > computer modeling then?
>>>>
>>>> The same thing we said yesterday.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>>Hey, Alder, once again, show me any paper that says that global
>>>warming doesn't exist. I can show hundreds of papers that say it does
>>>exist. See, scum bag, you have to prove that all scientists lie
>>>constantly, kinda' hard. But you set the goal high.
>>>
>>>So why don't you and your scum bag buddies either produce or shut up?
>>>
>>>No facts, no proof, must be a conservative.
>>
>>
>> Climate Change is what 'exists', and has for about 4 Billion years.
>> Cooling and warming has been a constant cycle for as long as this old
>> Earth has been orbiting the Sun. The big question (the only question)
>> is how much the activities of mankind are accelerating the process, if
>> at all. Makes you wonder what the hell the natives were doing just
>> 10,000 years ago that made many Glaciers in large parts of North
>> America to retreat North, playing a large part in the formation of the
>> Great Lakes. Those damn cooking fires!!
>
> Here's the question, would climate change matter if it didn't mean
> votes and big bucks? Of course not.
Don't forget 'control' - in this case control of industry. That's where
the big bucks lie.
> Every last person involved with it is after one or the other or both.
> Or useful idiots of those that are...
True dat.
Man_of_Mind
>
> E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
>>
>> Kevin Cunningham was hecking the usual right-tarded drivel from:
>>>
>>> "dim, addled" <jima...@ssnet.com> was ignored:
---
>>> Hey, Alder, once again, show me any paper that says that global
>>> warming doesn't exist. I can show hundreds of papers that say it does
>>> exist. See, scum bag, you have to prove that all scientists lie
>>> constantly, kinda' hard. But you set the goal high.
>>>
>>> So why don't you and your scum bag buddies either produce or shut up?
>>>
>>> No facts, no proof, must be a conservative.
>
> Argues science by calling me a "scumbag"
Yeah, he was being too polite about your lack of integrity..
>> Climate Change is what 'exists', and has for about 4 Billion years.
>> Cooling and warming has been a constant cycle for as long as this old
>> Earth has been orbiting the Sun. The big question (the only question)
>> is how much the activities of mankind are accelerating the process, if
>> at all. Makes you wonder what the hell the natives were doing just
>> 10,000 years ago that made many Glaciers in large parts of North
>> America to retreat North, playing a large part in the formation of the
>> Great Lakes. Those damn cooking fires!!
>
> A few hundred years ago, they tell me that Iceland was farm country
That's in complete contradiction with the facts, addled..
--Just like your failed political ideology..
Jim Alder
> Kevin Cunningham wrote:
>> E. Barry Bruyea <termlim...@democracy.com> wrote:
>>> Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>> "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> If the polar ice caps do not vanish in 5-7 years then can we say
>>>>>> that this new computer modeling is bullsh|t?
>>>
>>>>> We can say it NOW!
>>>
>>>>>> What if the ice caps actually increase? What can we say about
>>>>>> Gore and this computer modeling then?
>>>
>>>>> The same thing we said yesterday.
>>>
>>>>> --
>>>
>>>> Hey, Alder, once again, show me any paper that says that global
>>>> warming doesn't exist. I can show hundreds of papers that say it
>>>> does exist. See, scum bag, you have to prove that all scientists lie
>>>> constantly, kinda' hard. But you set the goal high.
>>>
>>>> So why don't you and your scum bag buddies either produce or shut
>>>> up?
>>>
>>>> No facts, no proof, must be a conservative.
>>>
>>> Climate Change is what 'exists', and has for about 4 Billion years.
>>> Cooling and warming has been a constant cycle for as long as this old
>>> Earth has been orbiting the Sun. The big question (the only question)
>>> is how much the activities of mankind are accelerating the process,
>>> if at all. Makes you wonder what the hell the natives were doing just
>>> 10,000 years ago that made many Glaciers in large parts of North
>>> America to retreat North, playing a large part in the formation of
>>> the Great Lakes. Those damn cooking fires!!
>>
>> And once again, the right wing is called on for facts and they don't
>> have any. No facts, that's the right wing for ya'!
Those certainly sounded like facts to me. Once again we hear from the
elementary school faction of the climate change argument, as Kev-bo calls us
all names, yet demands facts. LOL!!
>> So once again, moron, can you come up with a scientific paper that
>> agrees with you? Yeah, I know, you agree with you but does any
>> scientist?
>
> --------------------------------
> "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural
> variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the
> time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a
> causal linkage between the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
> and the observed climate changes during the 20th century _cannot be
> unequivocally established_. The fact that the magnitude of the observed
> warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in
> climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does _not_ constitute
> proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural
> variability on the decadal to century time scale."
> ----------------------------------
>
> National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
> Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy
> Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
>
> http://74.125.47.132/search?
q=cache:zBkG1Sloxv8J:www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/ClimateChangeScience.pdf+"An+An
alysis+of+Some+Key+Questions"+climate&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Nicely done. I'll bet it won't shut him up, tho.
Lamont Cranston
news:Xns9CE1C417F...@198.186.192.136
Who is "algore"?
Joe Irvin
"Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7199ea09-953b-4b80...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
****************************************************************
"As physicists who are familiar with th science issues, and as current and
past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the
Council to revise its current statement on climate change as follows, so as
to more accurately represent the current state of the science: Greenhouse
gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous ocide, accompany
human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has
been expressed that emissions may causes significant climate change,
measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th 21st
century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical
and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition,
there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects
of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals."
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/american_physical_society.pdf
Jim Alder
news:758gi51jibbnatkt1...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:51:56 -0800 (PST), Kevin Cunningham
> They you deny that retreating icebergs helped form the Great Lakes
> around ten thousand or so year ago? If so, you have just defined
> yourself as the King Of Morons. We all stand humbled at such complete
> and utter ignorance, stupidity and intellectually deficiency.
Yeah. Kevin gets that a lot.
Kevin Cunningham
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:04:40 -0500, E. Barry Bruyea
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:49:05 -0800 (PST), Kevin Cunningham
> ><sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote innews:vaAVm.354312$Xw3.237095@en-nntp-
> >>> 04.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> >>> > If the poloar ice caps do not vanish in 5-7 years then can we say that this
> >>> > new computer modeling is bullsh|t?
>
>
> >>> > What if the ice caps actually increase? ÊWhat can we say about Gore and this
> >>> > computer modeling then?
>
> >>> Ê ÊThe same thing we said yesterday.
>
> >>> --
>
> >>Hey, Alder, once again, show me any paper that says that global
> >>warming doesn't exist. I can show hundreds of papers that say it does
> >>exist. See, scum bag, you have to prove that all scientists lie
> >>constantly, kinda' hard. But you set the goal high.
>
> >>So why don't you and your scum bag buddies either produce or shut
> >>up?
>
> >>No facts, no proof, must be a conservative.
>
> >Climate Change is what 'exists', and has for about 4 Billion years.
> >Cooling and warming has been a constant cycle for as long as this old
> >Earth has been orbiting the Sun. The big question (the only question)
> >is how much the activities of mankind are accelerating the process, if
> >at all. Makes you wonder what the hell the natives were doing just
> >10,000 years ago that made many Glaciers in large parts of North
> >America to retreat North, playing a large part in the formation of the
> >Great Lakes. Those damn cooking fires!!
>
> Here's the question, would climate change matter if it didn't mean
> votes and big bucks? Of course not.
>
> Every last person involved with it is after one or the other or both.
> Or useful idiots of those that are...
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Prove, once again, that there is big money behind the global warming
forces. Prove that I get paid to post this. Prove that all the
people trying to conserve are being paid off. Then prove that the oil
companies don't get real big bucks.
What you still haven't done is produce a single scientific paper that
shows your right.
Typical stupid repug.
Kevin Cunningham
I don't know who "they" are but they are morons. Try again.
What you don't know about the history of Iceland .........
Kevin Cunningham
You claim that the facts are over looked but you can't seem to get the
facts out and post them. Must be in your other suit.
If you claim to have the facts then produce them.
You claimed that the facts were quite different from the facts
published in hundreds of papers. So were are these elusive facts?
Or are all the scientists lying again?
This is the same crap you posted during the evolution debate. So what
happened there? We evil science supporters won and we are winning
again.
lab~rat >:-)
<sms...@mindspring.com> puked:
>On Dec 15, 9:01ÔøΩam, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:04:40 -0500, E. Barry Bruyea
>> <termlim...@democracy.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:49:05 -0800 (PST), Kevin Cunningham
>> ><sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Dec 14, 8:26ÔøΩpm, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> >>> "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote innews:vaAVm.354312$Xw3.237095@en-nntp-
>> >>> 04.dc1.easynews.com:
>>
>> >>> > If the poloar ice caps do not vanish in 5-7 years then can we say that this
>> >>> > new computer modeling is bullsh|t?
>>
>> >>> ÔøΩ ÔøΩ We can say it NOW!
>>
>> >>> > What if the ice caps actually increase? ÔøΩWhat can we say about Gore and this
>> >>> > computer modeling then?
>>
>> >>> ÔøΩ ÔøΩThe same thing we said yesterday.
>>
>> >>> --
>>
>> >>Hey, Alder, once again, show me any paper that says that global
>> >>warming doesn't exist. ÔøΩI can show hundreds of papers that say it does
>> >>exist. ÔøΩSee, scum bag, you have to prove that all scientists lie
>> >>constantly, kinda' hard. ÔøΩBut you set the goal high.
>>
>> >>So why don't you and your scum bag buddies either produce or shut
>> >>up?
>>
>> >>No facts, no proof, must be a conservative.
>>
>> >Climate Change is what 'exists', and has for about 4 Billion years.
>> >Cooling and warming has been a constant cycle for as long as this old
>> >Earth has been orbiting the Sun. ÔøΩThe big question (the only question)
>> >is how much the activities of mankind are accelerating the process, if
>> >at all. ÔøΩMakes you wonder what the hell the natives were doing just
>> >10,000 years ago that made many Glaciers in large parts of North
>> >America to retreat North, playing a large part in the formation of the
>> >Great Lakes. ÔøΩThose damn cooking fires!!
>>
>> Here's the question, would climate change matter if it didn't mean
>> votes and big bucks? ÔøΩOf course not.
>>
>> Every last person involved with it is after one or the other or both.
>> Or useful idiots of those that are...
>> --
>> lab~rat ÔøΩ>:-)
>> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
>Prove, once again, that there is big money behind the global warming
>forces. Prove that I get paid to post this.
You qualify as a "useful" idiot, and the jury's still out on the
"useful" aspect...
>Prove that all the
>people trying to conserve are being paid off. Then prove that the oil
>companies don't get real big bucks.
How do you prove a negative, smart boy?
>
>What you still haven't done is produce a single scientific paper that
>shows your right.
>
>Typical stupid repug.
Smarter than you. Just sayin'.
Jim Alder
You said you wanted a paper. You've been sent several. Now you want us to
read them to you? Must be an empty suit.
>>If you claim to have the facts then produce them.
>>
>>You claimed that the facts were quite different from the facts
>>published in hundreds of papers. So were are these elusive facts?
>>
>>Or are all the scientists lying again?
Not 'again', 'still'. And not all of them. Just the ones you listen to.
>>This is the same crap you posted during the evolution debate.
Really? That must have looked out of place in a debate about evolution.
>> So what
>>happened there? We evil science supporters won and we are winning again.
You won the evolution/creation debate?! LOL!!!
> But you still don't know where the hell the Great Lakes are, how they
> got there and when. Just where did you learn your 'evil' science, the
> Flintstones?
Cunningham doesn't know anything about anything. He just gets a chubby
when he demands answers.
Kevin Cunningham
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:02:22 -0800 (PST), Kevin Cunningham
> <sms...@mindspring.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 15, 9:01Êam, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:04:40 -0500, E. Barry Bruyea
> >> <termlim...@democracy.com> puked:
>
> >> >On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:49:05 -0800 (PST), Kevin Cunningham
> >> ><sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>> "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote innews:vaAVm.354312$Xw3.237095@en-nntp-
> >> >>> 04.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> >> >>> > If the poloar ice caps do not vanish in 5-7 years then can we say that this
> >> >>> > new computer modeling is bullsh|t?
>
>
> >> >>> > What if the ice caps actually increase? æWhat can we say about Gore and this
> >> >>> > computer modeling then?
>
> >> >>> æ æThe same thing we said yesterday.
>
> >> >>> --
>
> >> >>Hey, Alder, once again, show me any paper that says that global
> >> >>exist. ÊSee, scum bag, you have to prove that all scientists lie
> >> >>constantly, kinda' hard. ÊBut you set the goal high.
>
> >> >>So why don't you and your scum bag buddies either produce or shut
> >> >>up?
>
> >> >>No facts, no proof, must be a conservative.
>
> >> >Climate Change is what 'exists', and has for about 4 Billion years.
> >> >Cooling and warming has been a constant cycle for as long as this old
> >> >is how much the activities of mankind are accelerating the process, if
> >> >10,000 years ago that made many Glaciers in large parts of North
> >> >America to retreat North, playing a large part in the formation of the
>
> >> Here's the question, would climate change matter if it didn't mean
>
> >> Every last person involved with it is after one or the other or both.
> >> Or useful idiots of those that are...
> >> --
> >> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
> >Prove, once again, that there is big money behind the global warming
> >forces. Prove that I get paid to post this.
>
> You qualify as a "useful" idiot, and the jury's still out on the
> "useful" aspect...
>
> >Prove that all the
> >people trying to conserve are being paid off. Then prove that the oil
> >companies don't get real big bucks.
>
> How do you prove a negative, smart boy?
>
>
>
> >What you still haven't done is produce a single scientific paper that
> >shows your right.
>
> >Typical stupid repug.
>
> Smarter than you. Just sayin'.
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Notice no facts and no science. Not the first time.
I have challenged the scum right wingers to produce *a* single paper,
just one, that shows that global warming is a fake. And they
haven't. Just like the above clown, all you get is a bunch of wind
from the windy brigade.
Clowns beeping horns differs from police sirens just like the right
wing's protestations aren't facts.
Try again, clown.
Kevin Cunningham
Those "papers" you posted weren't from any recognized scientific
publication. One was really cool, it almost looked like a scientific
publication until, about 1.5 seconds into reading it, you came to
understand that it was another right winger preaching to the choir.
So if you have published facts just give us the title of the
publication, that includes were and when it was published.
See, you can't. There has not been a paper proving global warming
wrong. And why is that you ask? Well, it has to do with a simple
fact. You have no data. None. See, clown, you have to have facts in
order to publish. One big one will work or a bunch of small ones but
you have to have facts.
And you don't have any.
The best you can come up with is yelling at me. Wow, that will solve
the worlds problems.
As for evolution, we won, you lost, get used to it.
com...@webtv.net
he and the filthy rich lawyers who run the democrat party are stealing
us blind !
just ike a lawyer on a tv show, these rich lawyers lie,twist the truth
and use fear to "win their case"..their "case' = "big money"
barack obama= lawyer
michelle obama = lawyer
hilary clinton= lawyer
bill clinton = lawyer
harry reid = lawyer
john edwards = lawyer
nancy pelosi = lawyer...
and on and on and on...
" FREE AMANDA "
Kevin Cunningham
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:45:07 -0800 (PST), Kevin Cunningham
> in regards to the retreating glaciers; implying (in your ignorance)
> that it didn't happen 10K years ago.
Just give me the name of a paper that says that global warming is
fake. I'll make it simple for ya'.
And you don't have it.
Face it, this is another lie told by yet another liar.
lab~rat >:-)
<sms...@mindspring.com> puked:
>I have challenged the scum right wingers to produce *a* single paper,
>just one, that shows that global warming is a fake. And they
>haven't. Just like the above clown, all you get is a bunch of wind
>from the windy brigade.
Global warming could very well be real. I think the issue is proving
man is causing it. And I'm not buying into these
government-commissioned stories. An independent, non-government
funded peer reviewed report is all I want to see.
Got any of that shit?
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:39:00 -0800 (PST), Kevin Cunningham
> <sms...@mindspring.com> puked:
>
>> I have challenged the scum right wingers to produce *a* single paper,
>> just one, that shows that global warming is a fake. And they
>> haven't. Just like the above clown, all you get is a bunch of wind
>>from the windy brigade.
I challenge you to produce one paper, that proves there is NO GOD.
> Global warming could very well be real. I think the issue is proving
> man is causing it. And I'm not buying into these
> government-commissioned stories. An independent, non-government
> funded peer reviewed report is all I want to see.
While the Big Bang and other theories have been put forward, there is
still no proof certain that GOD does NOT exist. NOT that I believe in
God but I surely don't see evidence there can't be a God. You need to
prove it one way or the other but with Global Warming they can prove
neither. It is therefor a religion.
People that say there is *NO God* , do so on Faith and therefor Atheism
is also a religion based on faith and NOT fact. While Agnostics believe
there may be a God but then there may NOT and they have no faith in
either. That makes Agnostics the only NON religion that I know of.
Global warming is a similar *FAITH BASED* theory. I have seen NO proof
positive it exists or doesn't exist... I do have evidence that people
are lying and misrepresenting the DATA that are known and that...
*forcing people to pay taxes to pay for Global Warming* is against the
freedom of religion statement in the first amendment in our
Constitution's Bill Of Right. Global Warming is *NOT* a fact and any
action taken is taken on *FAITH*
You Global Warming *TRUE BELIEVERS* need to prove it with indisputable
fact or stop the push to force your religion on the people of the USA.
Kevin Cunningham
Gee, drooler, what science hasn't had government money?
You claimed to be a scientist. You lied.
On one hand conservatives cheer for the government run military and
praise how it works. But if the government looks inside the country,
at them, they hate the government and claim that the government never
does any thing right. Get the hypocrisy here?
Kevin Cunningham
Notice, the above cum gums didn't produce a paper. Not a one. No
papers, no facts. Typical idiot conservative.
But he is happy to lead every off on a merry trail of no meaning.
The pathetic little scum still can't understand that the global
warming deniers are a group of sick, stupid losers who are unafraid to
attack a fact with out any facts.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Dec 17, 11:05 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> On 12/17/2009 8:54 AM, lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:39:00 -0800 (PST), Kevin Cunningham
>>> <sms...@mindspring.com> puked:
>>
>>>> I have challenged the scum right wingers to produce *a* single paper,
>>>> just one, that shows that global warming is a fake. And they
>>>> haven't. Just like the above clown, all you get is a bunch of wind
>>> >from the windy brigade.
>>
>> I challenge you to produce one paper, that proves there is NO GOD.
>>
>>> Global warming could very well be real. I think the issue is proving
>>> man is causing it. And I'm not buying into these
>>> government-commissioned stories. An independent, non-government
>>> funded peer reviewed report is all I want to see.
>>
>> While the Big Bang and other theories have been put forward, there is
>> still no proof certain that GOD does NOT exist. NOT that I believe in
>> God but I surely don't see evidence there can't be a God. You need to
>> neither. It is therefor a religion.
>>
>> People that say there is *NO God* , do so on Faith and therefor Atheism
>> is also a religion based on faith and NOT fact. While Agnostics believe
>> there may be a God but then there may NOT and they have no faith in
>> either. That makes Agnostics the only NON religion that I know of.
>>
>> Global warming is a similar *FAITH BASED* theory. I have seen NO proof
>> positive it exists or doesn't exist... I do have evidence that people
>> are lying and misrepresenting the DATA that are known and that...
>>
>> *forcing people to pay taxes to pay for Global Warming* is against the
>> freedom of religion statement in the first amendment in our
>> Constitution's Bill Of Right. Global Warming is *NOT* a fact and any
>> action taken is taken on *FAITH*
>>
>> You Global Warming *TRUE BELIEVERS* need to prove it with indisputable
>> fact or stop the push to force your religion on the people of the USA.
>
> Notice, the above cum gums didn't produce a paper. Not a one. No
> papers, no facts. Typical idiot conservative.
>
> But he is happy to lead every off on a merry trail of no meaning.
>
> The pathetic little scum still can't understand that the global
> warming deniers are a group of sick, stupid losers who are unafraid to
> attack a fact with out any facts.
So you can't prove there is Global Warming or that there isn't a God?
I knew it but I wanted you to admit it, and you have.
Global Warming is a Faith Based Religion and you are trying to tax and
support a religion via government laws and regulations and spending.
*You support violating the Constitution's first amendment*
Typical Liberal.
Kevin Cunningham
Look, monkey boiu, you don't have a paper. You don't have any facts.
As for your conflation of religion and science......nice try, no
cigar.
Global warming is a fact, all the scientists, all the papers agree.
When monkey boiu was asked to produce a paper in the negative he can't
do it.
So then he tries to hitch global warming to religion and he
gets....nothing. Just a lot of fun for the sane people on this NG.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Keep "Massaging the DATA" and telling people that it's fact and not
FICTION, but as with the Church, sooner or later the masses catch on to
the lie. You are just proclaiming you have facts to prove the earth is
flat.
If your faith says the earth is warming and we are all racing to meet
the apocalyptic end, then have fun but don't waste my tax dollars on
your religious faith. If you do then the next guy will want to build an
Ark.
Kevin Cunningham
Geez, the problem with you is you have never read a scientific paper.
You wouldn't know science from fried bacon.
Show me any accepted paper that has ever required faith in any thing?
Papers are rooted in facts, real ones, the kind of facts that allows
the reader to perform the same experiment and get the same result.
What a drooler, when faced with the fact that science requires facts
he jumps on theology and rides it around the ring.
The drooler has no facts, none.
Beam Me Up Scotty
OK post the experiment and the many repeated times that it worked with
the same results. You know the expirament that proves Global warming
was created by man.
> What a drooler, when faced with the fact that science requires facts
> he jumps on theology and rides it around the ring.
You call it a consensus... tell me which law in science is it that says
consensus is as good as an experiment that can be repeated to prove your
hypothesis?
> The drooler has no facts, none.
All you have is a computer model, like the ones that are guaranteed to
pick you the winning Lottery number.
Kevin Cunningham
The consensus of the scientific community says that global warming is
all to real. Fact. The consensus of the scientific community is that
gravity works all the time.
See, moron, you don't know what an experiment is and what a
publication does. You are completely ignorant but you didn't let that
slow you down. Your motto is attack first, period.
Do you actually think that when a physicist writes a paper that
details deflections in orbit he has to show proof that gravity
actually works? Are you that dumb? Are you so stupid that you think
that global warming is only explained in one paper? Do you really
think that papers directly and totally copy each other? Are you that
dumb?
Yeah, you're that dumb.....
Beam Me Up Scotty
A consensus has nothing to do with facts, but it is a vote of FAITH.
> The consensus of the scientific community is that
> gravity works all the time.
What Gravity is there in space? How does it work in a white hole?
And Einstein drafted the Theory of relativity, it was checked and there
have been many that thought it was wrong but the math checks out so it
has been proved and proved again as fact and NOT consensus.
"General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric
theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915. It is the
current description of gravitation in modern physics. It unifies special
relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, and describes
gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In
particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the
four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and
radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field
equations, a system of partial differential equations."
"Einstein used approximation methods in working out initial predictions
of the theory. But as early as 1916, the astrophysicist Karl
Schwarzschild found the first non-trivial exact solution to the Einstein
field equations, the so-called Schwarzschild metric. This solution laid
the groundwork for the description of the final stages of gravitational
collapse, and the objects known today as black holes. In the same year,
the first steps towards generalizing Schwarzschild's solution to
electrically charged objects were taken, which eventually resulted in
the Reissner-Nordström solution, now associated with charged black
holes.[2] In 1917, Einstein applied his theory to the universe as a
whole, initiating the field of relativistic cosmology. In line with
*contemporary thinking* , *he assumed a static universe* , adding a new
parameter to his original field equations—the cosmological constant—to
reproduce that "observation".[3] By 1929, however, the work of *Hubble
and others had shown that our universe is expanding* . This is readily
described by the expanding cosmological solutions found by Friedmann in
1922, which do not require a cosmological constant. Lemaître used these
solutions to formulate the earliest version of the big bang models, in
which our universe has evolved from an extremely hot and dense earlier
state.[4] Einstein *later declared* the *cosmological* *constant* the
biggest *blunder* of his life.[5]"
> See, moron, you don't know what an experiment is and what a
> publication does. You are completely ignorant but you didn't let that
> slow you down. Your motto is attack first, period.
You just pointed out the VALUE of your experiments and your
publications, all they have is a consensus and no facts. Science accepts
facts.... you can shoe the FACT that proves people created Global
Warming, any time you want, I'm still waiting.
Publications and consensus aren't the facts.... lets see the facts that
prove it's all man made?
> Do you actually think that when a physicist writes a paper that
> details deflections in orbit he has to show proof that gravity
> actually works? Are you that dumb? Are you so stupid that you think
Yes he does have to prove that he is basing his measurements and
calculations on "established facts" NOT ON CONSENSUS.
> that global warming is only explained in one paper? Do you really
> think that papers directly and totally copy each other? Are you that
> dumb?
Still waiting for that proof.... I don't need a paper that confirms a
consensus, just the facts that prove each step of your hypothesis.
SO keep predicting the future with *your Chicken Bones* and leave the
real Scientists alone.
Beam Me Up Scotty
A consensus has nothing to do with facts, but it is a vote of FAITH.
> The consensus of the scientific community is that
> gravity works all the time.
What Gravity is there in space? How does it work in a white hole?
> See, moron, you don't know what an experiment is and what a
> publication does. You are completely ignorant but you didn't let that
> slow you down. Your motto is attack first, period.
You just pointed out the VALUE of your experiments and your
publications, all they have is a consensus and no facts. Science accepts
facts.... you can show the FACT that proves people created Global
Warming, any time you want, I'm still waiting.
Publications and consensus aren't the facts.... lets see the facts that
prove it's all man made?
> Do you actually think that when a physicist writes a paper that
> details deflections in orbit he has to show proof that gravity
> actually works? Are you that dumb? Are you so stupid that you think
Yes he does have to prove that he is basing his measurements and
calculations on "established facts" NOT ON CONSENSUS. If you read
above, you see that Einstein accepted the *Consensus* of a static
universe until it was proven wrong and Einstein even admits it was the
huge mistake of his life.
> that global warming is only explained in one paper? Do you really
> think that papers directly and totally copy each other? Are you that
> dumb?
Still waiting for that proof.... I don't need a paper that confirms a
Kevin Cunningham
You wouldn't know a real scientist if he flunked you. Oh, wait, you
have never been close enough to a science building to even see a
scientist.
Look, idiot, you backed yourself into a corner. There is consensus on
global warming in the scientific community. You used the wrong
analogy, now you're trying to talk your way out of it.
Good try, no cigar.
Poetic Justice
Your getting pretty funny with your consensus and your FAITH in Global
Warming.... When you have FACTS that Prove Global Warming you can come
back and try again. Until then Preach the word of consensus and rally
the faithful.
Maybe you can go on a Missionary trip to sell your religion in Africa or
on a Pilgrimage to the Holy city of Copenhagen in your private Jet?
Good Luck.
Poetic Justice
Your getting pretty funny with your consensus and your FAITH in Global
Warming.... When you have FACTS that Prove Global Warming you can come
back and try again. Until then Preach the word of consensus and rally
the faithful.
Maybe you can go on a Missionary trip to sell your Global Warming
Poetic Justice
You're getting pretty funny with your consensus and your FAITH in Global
Kevin Cunningham
>
> You're getting pretty funny with your consensus and your FAITH in Global
> Warming.... When you have FACTS that Prove Global Warming you can come
> back and try again. Until then Preach the word of consensus and rally
> the faithful.
>
> Maybe you can go on a Missionary trip to sell your Global Warming
> religion in Africa or on a Pilgrimage to the Holy city of Copenhagen in
> your private Jet?
>
> Good Luck.
Poor drooler, you're so stupid you think I have faith in global
warming. Nope, not me, I don't believe in global warming. But I do
know how it works and how global warming occurs. That's just like my
understanding of electronics, no belief, it's not necessary.
See, moron, I have faith in my religion but faith gets in your way in
science. You just have to read and study constantly to keep up. Only
an idiot would think that science uses faith or any other words that
describe science as religion. There quite different. Go over to your
local college and ask what the difference is between faith and
science. The philosophy dept. would love to discuss that with you.
And that is about as close as you can get to a BA.
sigvaldi
wrote:
> On Dec 15, 9:49 am, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > E. Barry Bruyea <termlim...@democracy.com> wrote:
>
> > > Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
> > >>> "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote:
>
> > >>> > If the polar ice caps do not vanish in 5-7 years then can we say that
> > this
> > >>> > new computer modeling is bullsh|t?
>
> > >>> We can say it NOW!
>
> > >>> > What if the ice caps actually increase? What can we say about Gore and
> > this
> > >>> > computer modeling then?
>
> > >>> The same thing we said yesterday.
>
> > >>> --
>
> > >>Hey, Alder, once again, show me any paper that says that global
> > >>warming doesn't exist. I can show hundreds of papers that say it does
> > >>exist. See, scum bag, you have to prove that all scientists lie
> > >>constantly, kinda' hard. But you set the goal high.
>
> > >>So why don't you and your scum bag buddies either produce or shut up?
>
> > >>No facts, no proof, must be a conservative.
>
>
> > > Climate Change is what 'exists', and has for about 4 Billion years.
> > > Cooling and warming has been a constant cycle for as long as this old
> > > Earth has been orbiting the Sun. The big question (the only question)
> > > is how much the activities of mankind are accelerating the process, if
> > > at all. Makes you wonder what the hell the natives were doing just
> > > 10,000 years ago that made many Glaciers in large parts of North
> > > America to retreat North, playing a large part in the formation of the
> > > Great Lakes. Those damn cooking fires!!
>
> > wonder how the polar bears survived?
Iceland has been a farm country since it was settled (sometime between
600 and 800 AD) but it has never had Polar bears (except as occasional
visitors)
You may have been thinking about Greenland?
> I don't know who "they" are but they are morons. Try again.
>
> What you don't know about the history ofIceland.........- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
sigvaldi
> "dim, addled" <jimal...@ssnet.com> was whimpering ineffectively at:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
>
> >> Kevin Cunningham was hecking the usual right-tarded drivel from:
>
> >>> "dim, addled" <jimal...@ssnet.com> was ignored:
> ---
> >>> Hey, Alder, once again, show me any paper that says that global
> >>> warming doesn't exist. I can show hundreds of papers that say it does
> >>> exist. See, scum bag, you have to prove that all scientists lie
> >>> constantly, kinda' hard. But you set the goal high.
>
> >>> So why don't you and your scum bag buddies either produce or shut up?
>
> >>> No facts, no proof, must be a conservative.
>
> > Argues science by calling me a "scumbag"
>
>
> >> Climate Change is what 'exists', and has for about 4 Billion years.
> >> Cooling and warming has been a constant cycle for as long as this old
> >> Earth has been orbiting the Sun. The big question (the only question)
> >> is how much the activities of mankind are accelerating the process, if
> >> at all. Makes you wonder what the hell the natives were doing just
> >> 10,000 years ago that made many Glaciers in large parts of North
> >> America to retreat North, playing a large part in the formation of the
> >> Great Lakes. Those damn cooking fires!!
>
> > A few hundred years ago, they tell me thatIcelandwas farm country
>
Tater Gumfries
> COPENHAGEN (AP) - New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be
> nearly ice-free in the summertime as early as 2014, Al Gore said Monday at
> the U.N. climate conference. This new projection, following several years of
> dramatic retreat by polar sea ice, suggests that the ice cap may nearly
> vanish in the summer much sooner than the year 2030, as was forecast by a
> U.S. government agency eight months ago.
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hGkx5ED3BxWScLRJuzh...
>
> ---
>
> If the poloar ice caps do not vanish in 5-7 years then can we say that this
> new computer modeling is bullsh|t?
You have no idea what the computer models predict.
Tater
Jim Alder
@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
Damn. I'm always getting those two confused.
http://vinlandpublishing.blogspot.com/2009/12/medieval-greenland-vikings-can-
teach-us.html
The Northern Hemisphere of this planet is in a normal warming cycle. It began
to manifest itself as the preceding cycle, the Mini-Ice Age (1300-1800), wound
down about the mid-19th century. Nothing in global climate happens overnight.
Each cycle is of about 500-years duration. With that assumption, we can say
that the midpoint of this warming cycle that we are enjoying will be about
2100. In other words, we can expect the climate to gradually trend toward
warmer and dryer for the next 92-years. Then it might get worse, historically
speaking that is. At the same time, there will be periodic cycles of colder,
wetter weather in parts of the globe that have never experienced such in
living memory.
The advent of the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300) gave rise to the Viking Age
(793-1150).The warmer weather increased production of everything the Vikings
ate. Populations among the Viking tribes burgeoned dramatically. This
eventually led to thoughts of expansion and conquest; the norm throughout
human history. The ice-locked fjords began to clear earlier in the season than
normal. The length of the raiding and trading season continued to increase
over the 500-year period of the Medieval Warm Period. The Vikings exploded out
over the north and western Atlantic Ocean, settling Iceland, Greenland, and
areas of northeastern North America. The five hundred years of comparatively
benign weather during the Medieval Warm Period fostered the Viking Age.
Earth's next weather cycle, the Mini-Ice Age (1300-1800), played a major roll
in ending it, especially for isolated--from the homeland--Norse Greenland. The
Greenland Norse lifestyle could not be maintained in the face of Climate
Change and a changing environment--starvation loomed. Of all the single-cause
explanations for the death of Norse Greenland, Climate Change has been the
most durable. (Thomas McGovern, Vikings, The North Atlantic Saga, The Demise
of Norse Greenland, 2000-Smithsonian Institution, 330-331.)
Now, if the present global Climate Change cycle - Global Warming - is our
responsibility, you know carbon offsets, CO2, and whatnot, if we caused this
calamity, how do you explain the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300)? It was
warmer in the Northern Hemisphere then than it is now. Perhaps the Vikings,
the Greenland Norse people whom I write about caused it with their peat fires,
flatulent livestock, and whatnot. Sounds ridiculous, huh? It is ridiculous.
They had nothing more to do with their natural planetary climate cycle then,
than we do with ours today. Remember, all of this climate stuff has happened
before. It has been happening for 18,000-years that we know about.
--
My girlfriend asked me "Have you been having
sex behind my back?"
I said "Who in the hell did you think it was?"
Jim Alder
@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 15 2009, 2:59�ｿｽpm, Man_of_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "dim, addled" <jimal...@ssnet.com> was whimpering ineffectively at:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
>>
>> >> Kevin Cunningham was hecking the usual right-tarded drivel from:
>>
>> >>> "dim, addled" <jimal...@ssnet.com> was ignored: ---
>> >>> Hey, Alder, once again, show me any paper that says that global
>> >>> warming doesn't exist. �ｿｽI can show hundreds of papers that say it does
>> >>> exist. �ｿｽSee, scum bag, you have to prove that all scientists lie
>> >>> constantly, kinda' hard. �ｿｽBut you set the goal high.
>>
>> >>> So why don't you and your scum bag buddies either produce or shut up?
>>
>> >>> No facts, no proof, must be a conservative.
>>
>> > Argues science by calling me a "scumbag"
>>
>> Yeah, he was being too polite about your lack of integrity..
>>
>> >> Climate Change is what 'exists', and has for about 4 Billion years.
>> >> Cooling and warming has been a constant cycle for as long as this old
>> >> Earth has been orbiting the Sun. �ｿｽThe big question (the only question)
>> >> is how much the activities of mankind are accelerating the process, if
>> >> at all. �ｿｽMakes you wonder what the hell the natives were doing just
>> >> 10,000 years ago that made many Glaciers in large parts of North
>> >> America to retreat North, playing a large part in the formation of the
>> >> Great Lakes. �ｿｽThose damn cooking fires!!
>>
>> > A few hundred years ago, they tell me thatIcelandwas farm country
>>
>> That's in complete contradiction with the facts, addled..
>
> Iceland has been a farm country since it was settled (sometime between
> 600 and 800 AD) but it has never had Polar bears (except as occasional
> visitors)
> You may have been thinking about Greenland?
For the record, I wasn't suggesting that there were polar bears in either
place. I was referring to them surviving the 'global warming' of this previous
era.
IAAH
The MWP was a local North Atlantic phenomenon. The
earth actually cooled slightly overall during that
same time.
Could you just stop bringing that up? You just
look stupid every time. The earth is not currently
cooling, and the warming occurring is not a local
phenomenon.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
-Bertrand Russell
sigvaldi
> sigvaldi <sigv...@binet.is> wrote in news:32ccb2c1-634d-4e3d-a123-96d94014ca06
> @a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15 2009, 2:59 pm, Man_of_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "dim, addled" <jimal...@ssnet.com> was whimpering ineffectively at:
>
> >> > E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
>
> >> >> Kevin Cunningham was hecking the usual right-tarded drivel from:
>
> >> >>> "dim, addled" <jimal...@ssnet.com> was ignored: ---
> >> >>> Hey, Alder, once again, show me any paper that says that global
> >> >>> exist. See, scum bag, you have to prove that all scientists lie
> >> >>> constantly, kinda' hard. But you set the goal high.
>
> >> >>> So why don't you and your scum bag buddies either produce or shut up?
>
> >> >>> No facts, no proof, must be a conservative.
>
> >> > Argues science by calling me a "scumbag"
>
> >> Yeah, he was being too polite about your lack of integrity..
>
> >> >> Climate Change is what 'exists', and has for about 4 Billion years.
> >> >> Cooling and warming has been a constant cycle for as long as this old
> >> >> is how much the activities of mankind are accelerating the process, if
> >> >> 10,000 years ago that made many Glaciers in large parts of North
> >> >> America to retreat North, playing a large part in the formation of the
>
> >> > A few hundred years ago, they tell me thatIcelandwas farm country
>
> >> That's in complete contradiction with the facts, addled..
>
> > Iceland has been a farm country since it was settled (sometime between
> > 600 and 800 AD) but it has never had Polar bears (except as occasional
> > visitors)
> > You may have been thinking about Greenland?
>
> For the record, I wasn't suggesting that there were polar bears in either
> place. I was referring to them surviving the 'global warming' of this previous
> era.
>
There is a large Polar bear population in Greenland, just as in Canada
and the USA (Alaska)
Jim Alder
Why, because YOU say so?
> The earth is not currently
> cooling, and the warming occurring is not a local
> phenomenon.
>
--