Global Warming Swindle Dealt Another Blow!!!
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
Some fuckers need to go to prison!!!!
The paper also highlighted that it reinforced the conclusions of the
U.N.'s controversial Fourth Assessment report, which warned of the
dangerous of man-made climate change.
However, mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied
statistics have forced the authors to retract their paper -- the first
official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, notes the
Guardian. In an officially published retraction of their paper, the
authors acknowledged these mistakes as factors that compromised the
results.
"We no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and
twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the
results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote authors Mark
Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark.
mr dude
Husky
This GW nonsense is like "Reefer Madness"was in the 30's. Gore/
Anslinger, both liars to advance an agenda! Pure BS, but the Lemmings
are always looking for something to embrace and follow.
Thank you for your service, Mr Dude.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
> This GW nonsense is like "Reefer Madness"was in the 30's. Gore/
> Anslinger, both liars to advance an agenda! Pure BS, but the Lemmings
> are always looking for something to embrace and follow.
>
> Thank you for your service, Mr Dude.
I am, therefore I'll think.
mr dude
cloud dreamer
You're cheering for him without a fucking clue what he's talking about.
NOT A FUCKING CLUE.
You talk as though the science predicting the effect of climate change
is perfect. It's not. No one is saying it is.
The consensus is that we ARE changing the climate. There is NO DEBATE
over the FACT that we are changing the climate.
The debate is over how massive amounts of GHG being pumped into the
atmosphere will PRECISELY affect the climate. These studies undergo a
great deal of oversight and not every point will be right. Many are.
Many have come true already. The fact that the oversight in this one
point has been uncovered and corrected IS PROOF that the science and
review process works. Uncovering errors is part of the process. It's not
lying.
<sheesh> How desperate you must be.
Not that I expect anything I say to change your mind. The oil companies
and their Conservative lap dogs have BILLIONS of dollars to plant the
seeds of doubt in your limited minds. You are the lemming. You're the
one accepting the denier bullshit without the first clue about the
science behind climate change.
You're like a hick telling an oncologist that he's wrong, that you don't
have cancer. He brings in 4000 of his colleagues who confirm that you
have cancer, but you still refuse to believe it because the health food
store clerk told you that you don't.
Problem is by the time the evidence becomes obvious to even the
close-minded uneducated hicks like you, it'll be too late to stop the
changes.
I hope you don't have kids. You obviously hate them.
For those that want to educate themselves, check here to see the
bullshit denier excuses addressed complete with cites (something you'll
never see from and oil industry funded site):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
And get more information from the climate scientists themselves:
Information from people who are a hell of a lot smarter than Mr. Dude.
<plonk>
..
R�vNsf�n �
news:l4WdnTUrR6KvrR7W...@supernews.com...
That was awesome Cloud Dreamer. I missed the Vagina Monologues when they
came to Baltimore last season and was waiting for this season. After this
though it would be a mega let down. Thanks bitch !
Drew ~
R�vNsf�n �
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
wrote:
> The consensus is that we ARE changing the climate. There is NO DEBATE
> over the FACT that we are changing the climate.
The HEAD of the Global Warming scam admitted that there has been ZERO
"Global Warming" in the last 15 years!!!!
Read this over and over and over.......
mr dude (sometimes duped Libs will never let go. p.s. the moon landing
was not faked and Elvis is not alive and selling lizard wings in the
Arizona desert with Jim Morrison)
.
Husky
wrote:
>
> You talk as though the science predicting the effect of climate change
> is perfect. It's not. No one is saying it is.
furthers their agenda. 21st century McCarthy's!.
Lying bastards who will say or do anything to "make" their point.
When they get caught, as they so often they do, they just say "oop's,
sorry", mistakes happen. Of course, no accountability is asked for.
Only a clueless, person could continue to accept their premise.
They've been caught, red handed. Hey, that makes you Clueless.
>
> The consensus is that we ARE changing the climate. There is NO DEBATE
> over the FACT that we are changing the climate.
>
> The debate is over how massive amounts of GHG being pumped into the
> atmosphere will PRECISELY affect the climate. These studies undergo a
> great deal of oversight and not every point will be right. Many are.
> Many have come true already. The fact that the oversight in this one
> point has been uncovered and corrected IS PROOF that the science and
> review process works. Uncovering errors is part of the process. It's not
> lying.
wasn't due to mistakes or oversights, but rather by intent.
>
> <sheesh> How desperate you must be.
>
> Not that I expect anything I say to change your mind. The oil companies
> and their Conservative lap dogs have BILLIONS of dollars to plant the
> seeds of doubt in your limited minds. You are the lemming. You're the
> one accepting the denier bullshit without the first clue about the
> science behind climate change.
like that time your new "Lover" slipped out in the middle of the
night, leaving a $5 on the dresser.
As you've plonked me, you'll probably never see this, but just know,
I'll always remember you as the DIZZY WITCH, you are.
>
> You're like a hick telling an oncologist that he's wrong, that you don't
> have cancer. He brings in 4000 of his colleagues who confirm that you
> have cancer, but you still refuse to believe it because the health food
> store clerk told you that you don't.
You're like the hypochondriac who falls for every BS thing you hear
about on Oprah orthe View.
Admit it, you're agenda driven and don't care to entertain facts that
prove you're "GW Bible" is written on recycled fairy tales.
>
> Problem is by the time the evidence becomes obvious to even the
> close-minded uneducated hicks like you, it'll be too late to stop the
> changes.
Why the Ad Hominem BS Cutie? All you're doing is proving yourself to
be incapable of entertaining a Rogerian debate.
>
> I hope you don't have kids. You obviously hate them.
I bet your folks feel that way about you.
>
> For those that want to educate themselves, check here to see the
> bullshit denier excuses addressed complete with cites (something you'll
> never see from and oil industry funded site):
If you want to know the truth, do a News search for Global warming,
with words e.g. hoax, retraction and mistaken.
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>
> And get more information from the climate scientists themselves:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/
>
> Information from people who are a hell of a lot smarter than Mr. Dude.
>
> <plonk>
>
> ..
What's the matter Sweetie, did you mix up the BenGay and Preparation
H, again, or did your batteries die?
They GW Consortium has lost all credibility, and only fools would
continue to accept their rhetoric.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
wrote:
>
> Not that I expect anything I say to change your mind. The oil companies
> and their Conservative lap dogs have BILLIONS of dollars to plant the
> seeds of doubt in your limited minds. You are the lemming. You're the
> one accepting the denier bullshit without the first clue about the
> science behind climate change.
Here is more debunking of the biggest hoax ever:
In naming roustabout, lumberjack, ironworker, and dairy farmer
America's “worst jobs,” CareerCast.com omitted one whose awfulness is
counterbalanced only by its public-spiritedness: fact-checking Bjørn
Lomborg.
The Danish political scientist won fame and fans by arguing that many
of the alarms sounded by environmental activists and scientists—that
species are going extinct at a dangerous rate, that forests are
disappearing, that climate change could be catastrophic—are bogus. A
big reason Lomborg was taken seriously is that both of his books, The
Skeptical Environmentalist (in 2001) and Cool It(in 2007), have
extensive references, giving a seemingly authoritative source for
every one of his controversial assertions. So in a display of
altruistic masochism that we should all be grateful for (just as we're
grateful that some people are willing to be dairy farmers), author
Howard Friel has checked every single citation in Cool It. The result
is The Lomborg Deception, which is being published by Yale University
Press next month. It reveals that Lomborg's work is "a mirage," writes
biologist Thomas Lovejoy in the foreword. "[I]t is a house of cards…
Friel has used real scholarship to reveal the flimsy nature" of
Lomborg's work.
Friel's previous books (The Record of the Paper: How The New York
Times Misreports U.S. Foreign Policy and Israel-Palestine on Record)
were works of media criticism, and that's what he thought this one
would be. He had planned to examine coverage of global warming in the
Times and The Wall Street Journal, he told me, when he came upon Cool
It. In this and his other writing, Lomborg accepts that greenhouse
gases from the burning of coal, oil, or natural gas trap heat in the
atmosphere and thus alter climate. But he doesn't think it will be a
disaster, which means we shouldn't do anything too difficult or
expensive to avert it. That has made him hugely influential in
providing cover to politicians, climate-change deniers, and
corporations that don't want any part of controls on greenhouse
emissions. Lomborg made that stance intellectually respectable in many
circles, in no small part because his books seem so well sourced,
something a number of glowing reviews noted. The Guardian named him
"one of the 50 people who could save the planet" and Foreign Policy
listed him as 14th on its list of "the top 100 public intellectuals."
But when Friel began checking Lomborg's sources, "I found problems,"
he says. "As an experiment, I looked up one of his footnotes, found
that it didn't support what he said, and then did another, and kept
going, finding the same pattern." He therefore took on the Augean
stables undertaking of checking every one of the hundreds of citations
in Cool It. Friel's conclusion, as per his book's title, is that
Lomborg is "a performance artist disguised as an academic."
I don't want to be as trusting as the reviewers who praised Lomborg's
scholarship without (it seems) bothering to check his references, so
rather than taking Friel at his word just as they took Lomborg at his,
I've done my best to do that checking. Although Friel engages in some
bothersome overkill, overall his analysis is compelling. Let me pick
three of Lomborg's contentions that Friel pretty much blows out of the
water.
mr dude
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
<foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
. Let me pick
> three of Lomborg's contentions that Friel pretty much blows out of the
> water.
Lomborg opens Cool It with a long discussion on polar bears, arguing
that no more than two (of 20) groups are declining in population, that
their numbers are not falling overall, and, in places where they are,
that it is not a result of global (or Arctic) warming. In fact, polar-
bear populations in warming regions are rising, he argues, suggesting
that a warmer world will be beneficial to the bears. As Friel shows,
Lomborg sourced that to a blog post and to a study that never
mentioned polar bears. But he ignored the clear message of the most
authoritative assessment of the bears' population trends, namely,
research by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. It
found that bear populations are indeed declining where the Arctic is
warming. In fact, concluded the IUCN, polar-bear populations "have
declined significantly" where spring temperatures have risen
dramatically. It also offered an explanation for Lomborg's claim that
numbers are falling most where temps are getting colder: that area
happens to be where there is unregulated hunting.
For his claim that the polar-bear population "has soared," Lomborg
cited a 1999 study (scroll down to the paper by Ian Stirling). But
that study described declining birthrates and other threats to the
bears, blaming warmer spring temperatures that cause the sea ice to
break up. Overall, since the mid-1980s polar-bear numbers have fallen,
which experts attribute to global warming. The source is thus not
exactly the solid endorsement of Lomborg's claim about thriving polar
bears that one might assume.
One of Lomborg's most interesting claims is that global warming will
avert more deaths (as fewer people die of cold) than it will cause.
But three of the five sources he cites (including this and this)
reached the opposite conclusion, Friel shows. (Lomborg told me he
included the three to criticize them, but a reader flipping to the
endnotes might get the impression that they supported his claim.)
Of the other two studies Lomborg cites for the claim that averted cold
deaths will outnumber heat deaths, he told me by e-mail, "there is no
question that they support my point. Indeed their support is so
explicit that I am at a loss to see how Friel could have construed it
otherwise." One study, he said, is "the only peer-reviewed study to
calculate all extra heat deaths and avoided cold deaths globally." The
two studies are here, from 2006, and here, from 2000. But the 2006
study concludes that 850,000 deaths from cold will be averted in a
warmer world, not the 1.4 million Lomborg says, and it estimated
deaths from only six causes (cardiovascular disease, respiratory
illness, diarrhea, and three tropical diseases), not from everything.
The 2000 study offered death-rate estimates only for people 65 to 74,
so it is hardly a full population-wide analysis. Finally, Lomborg
cites a report by the World Health Organization to support his claim
that cold claims millions of lives—1.5 million in Europe every year,
he writes. But the WHO report says nothing about that. (Lomborg told
me he cited WHO "solely to provide an estimate of Europe's population"
but, as with other source notes, it appears to support his
controversial claim, not something as unobjectionable as Europe's
population.)
"This pattern of nonexistent footnoted support for assertions in the
text was quite common," Friel told me. Lomborg makes "a highly
substantive claim that, when you go to the footnotes, is not
supported. When you ask me, 'How would you characterize Lomborg's
methodology?' it is not such an easy question to answer. I mean, what
do you call this?"
Lomborg also went to town on the 2002 breakup of Antarctica’s Larsen B
ice shelf, which environmentalists blamed on global warming. "The
Larsen area" has been breaking up for centuries, he argued, so the
huge breakup cannot be blamed on man-made global warming. But the
study he cited for that statement, writes Friel, "was not a study of
the Larsen B ice shelf…Thus, while supposedly demonstrating that the
2002 [breakup] had a precedent during the Holocene, Lomborg dropped
the specific reference to Larsen B, inserted the broader 'Larsen area'
reference, and cited a study about the Larsen A area as if it
supported his claims about the Larsen B area."
I've quoted the above at some length because it is indicative of two
things: Friel's fine-grained sleuthing and the unfortunate lack of
reader-friendliness that has resulted. Friel also undercuts his thesis
by significant overkill, chastising Lomborg for describing a source as
"Figure 10.6.1" rather than "Section 10.6.1." That is sloppiness on
Lomborg's part, not duplicity, and including it—and many, many like it—
makes Friel seem like Inspector Javert in obsessive pursuit of Jean
Valjean. Mixing the trivial with the significant doesn't help his
argument. Friel also gets tripped up by the recent revelation that the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied for its assertion
about Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 on an off-the-cuff
(since retracted) comment, not a rigorous study. Friel criticizes
Lomborg for saying they would disappear by the end of this century,
arguing that he should have accepted the IPCC's date of 2035. Oops.
mr dude
Nunya Bidnits
Aren't you the fine fucking scientist.
Now pay attention, dimbulb.
There was an error in the report. They have acknowledged it was an error. It
was also corrected, and pointed out that the correction did not change the
substantial evidence presented or the conclusions drawn.
Now pay closer attention, even though it requires you to comprehend a number
with more than two digits.
There were 3000 pages in that report. 3000. I'll give you a second to let
that sink in.
Got a slight, rapidly slipping grasp on that? OK, here's an easy number for
you.
Out of that report, the error you are whining about like a clown was 8
lines.
Got that?
8 lines... that's not even 8 sentences, just 8 lines out of 3000 pages.
Are you going to tell me you've read this report and then claim that those 8
lines constituted the entire conclusionary substance of the report, or that
those 8 lines were of such seminal importance to the study that they altered
its course completely?
Of course you are, because you're a fucking clown, even though we all know
you haven't read it and couldn't grasp the science if you had 10 years to
learn what you are talking about.
. Why don't you come up with a scientific, 3000 page comprehensive report
to support your beliefs? Oh, that's right, you don't know jack shit about
the science, you just like to comment on it by namecalling against people
with dozens of years of solid education and experience.
So you're just making things up where there is no evidence, and using that
crap to scare people and discredit those who are truthful, or whose views
differ from your own unsupported, baseless ideas.
Now, idiot, the most important part:
That makes YOU the neo-McCarthyite. Kinda like a phony Hitler-namecaller,
but even more worthlessly stupid.
Whether others who are well educated agree or disagree with your
conclusions, doesn't matter, because no scientist on either side of the
story would give your ignorant bullshit the time of day. You're just a silly
wanker who has no business in the discussion, but still seeks to alter the
perceptions of others to a delusional level based on your personal ignorance
and misguided hatred.
Now fuck off and go lay down somewhere.
Husky
That'll be with you wife while you're out slaying windmills, you
GULLIBLE, NAIVE moron! This way to the cliff, lemming.
Nunya Bidnits
And then you see how idiotic your response was and corrected your spelling,
but not your stupid windmill slayer comment. Like I said, I have just beaten
you down to a pulp in this argument, where you have nothing whatsoever to
respond with except your juvenile ad hominems.
Maybe you could try actually reading my post and comprehend the part about
3009 pages of research.
On second thought, forget it, you can't deal with rational thought. My bad.
It's time for some bandwidth cleansing, there is clearly some contamination.
Observe:
<plonk> dimbulb
Husky
On Feb 23, 3:05 pm, "NubbNuts" <nunyabidn...@eternal-idiot.invalid>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Husky said:
> >>>>>> mr dude
> >>>>http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
> >>>>http://www.realclimate.org/
> >>>> <plonk>
> >>>> ..
> >> Now pay attention, dimbulb.
> >> Got that?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942 3000 pages of made up "fact".
> >> So you're just making things up where there is no evidence, and
> >> using that crap to scare people and discredit those who are
> >> truthful, or whose views differ from your own unsupported, baseless
> >> ideas.
Now that's rich. I feel the same about you. You accept and champion
flawed data then follow the spewers of it down the primrose path.
> >> Now, idiot, the most important part:
> >> That makes YOU the neo-McCarthyite. Kinda like a phony
> >> Hitler-namecaller, but even more worthlessly stupid.
Your head is so far up your butt, you'll never see daylight again.
You're Holy Grail is full of holes.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> >> Whether others who are well educated agree or disagree with your
> >> conclusions, doesn't matter, because no scientist on either side of
> >> the story would give your ignorant bullshit the time of day. You're
> >> just a silly wanker who has no business in the discussion, but still
> >> seeks to alter the perceptions of others to a delusional level based
> >> on your personal ignorance and misguided hatred.
> >> Now fuck off and go lay down somewhere.
> > That'll be with you wife while you're out slaying windmills, you
> > GULLIBLE, NAIVE moron! This way to the cliff, lemming.
> And then you see how idiotic your response was and corrected your spelling,
> but not your stupid windmill slayer comment. Like I said, I have just beaten
> you down to a pulp in this argument, where you have nothing whatsoever to
> respond with except your juvenile ad hominems.
No, Sparky, you just proved what we all knew, that you're a Cool Aid
drinking, moon bat, with delusions of grandeur.
> Maybe you could try actually reading my post and comprehend the part about
> 3009 pages of research.
GIGO.
> On second thought, forget it, you can't deal with rational thought. My bad.
I can, I just haven't seen any from you or CD.
> It's time for some bandwidth cleansing, there is clearly some contamination.
Yes, you are a polluter.
> Observe:
> <plonk> dimbulb
Plonk and Run. A holes like you and CD start with the personal BS
then feign indignation when comes back at you.
I stopped reading after the intro which read, "once upon a time".
GIGO, you moron. You're "cause is unraveling like a cheap suit and the
lies and misnomers have been pointed out for anyone willing to read
the facts.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
september.invalid> wrote:
>
> Maybe you could try actually reading my post and comprehend the part about
> 3009 pages of research.
So if in 3009 pages of research eight lines show a fatal flaw in the
entire argument we should ignore it?
Melting of Antarctic ice shelves has been disproved!
Global warming in the last 15 years has been disproved!
Polar bears drowning has been disproved!
More damaging hurricanes has been disproved!!
Himalayan glacier ice melting was invented (for political purposes -
to try to get world governments to take notice)
How many fucking lies have to be shown so you lemmings realize that
there is NO man made "global warming"???
Remember, "established science" told us that leeches cured diseases,
we would run out of oil in 1970, killer bees would cause millions of
deaths, Y2K would make planes fall out of the sky, the "Pig Flu" would
kill millions, ALAR in apples is killing our kids, the "population
bomb" would lead to massive starvation by 1980!!!!!
How massively fucking stupid and ignorant are you to still fall for
this idiocy????
You are an enormously sophomoric dipshit!
Do humanity a favor, take your ignorant ass to a train track and piss
on the third rail.
love, mr dude
Husky
<foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do humanity a favor, take your ignorant ass to a train track and piss
> on the third rail.
>
> love, mr dude
That was absolutely inspiring, Mr Dude. It's morons like CD and Numb
Nuts that keep Mary Kay, Amway and their local Palm readers in
business. PT Barnum was right. Their getting snookered is
understandable but their refusing to acknowledge that they've been
snookered is childish,
On a sad note, Too bad Abe Vigoda wasn't around to see it, He
succumbed to injuries received in a touch FB game on 2/7.
MuahMan
"mr du...@harvarduniversity.edu" <fost...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ec4c58f-1d72-4c09...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
You are unAmerican, I hereby sentence you to live in Soviet Russia!!!!
MuahMan
"MuahMan" <mua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b875010$0$19041$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
For eternity!!!
MuahMan
"MuahMan" <mua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b875181$0$7820$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
And a few years after that!!!!
azjim
> "MuahMan" <muah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b875181$0$7820$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "MuahMan" <muah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:4b875010$0$19041$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> >> "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1ec4c58f-1d72-4c09...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Feb 22, 8:32 pm, cloud dreamer <Climate.is.chang...@too.fast>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> The consensus is that we ARE changing the climate. There is NO DEBATE
> >>>> over the FACT that we are changing the climate.
>
> >>> The HEAD of the Global Warming scam admitted that there has been ZERO
> >>> "Global Warming" in the last 15 years!!!!
>
> >>> Read this over and over and over.......
>
> >>> mr dude (sometimes duped Libs will never let go. p.s. the moon landing
> >>> was not faked and Elvis is not alive and selling lizard wings in the
> >>> Arizona desert with Jim Morrison)
>
> >>> .
>
> >> You are unAmerican, I hereby sentence you to live in Soviet Russia!!!!
>
> > For eternity!!!
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You don't understand!!! Too little snow = global warming...Too much
snow = global warming / Temps up = global warming...Temps down =
global warming / Alot of hurricanes = global warming... Too few
hurricanes = global warming / Too many earthquakes = global
warming...Too few earthquakes = global warming / Saints win the super
bowl = global warming...Colts win the super bowl = global warming.
The climate changes on a cycle...always has...always will!
Nunya Bidnits
You're trying to reason with an idiot. He probably doesn't believe in
evolution either, and that's understandable. Some mutations serve the
species, but in his case it's something you wouldn't want to introduce the
gene pool. Let's hope he's been sterilized.
Galen Boyer
change is going on. Just watch the news. Severe weather coverage every
other day.
Project our lifestyle out 500 years. Do you really think the world will
be habitable 500 years from now if we continue down the path we are on?
--
Galen Boyer
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Ray O'Hara
"Galen Boyer" <galen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uvddif...@www.yahoo.com...
> You don't have to be a scientist to understand that global climate
> change is going on. Just watch the news. Severe weather coverage every
> other day.
>
> Project our lifestyle out 500 years. Do you really think the world will
> be habitable 500 years from now if we continue down the path we are on?
>
the 'Rapture" is coming and Jesus will take everybody home in our lifetime.
there is no future.
so its okay to use all resorces and pollute the planet with no regard for
the future.
Not Sure
wrote:
Sure there is. But keep throwing your temper tantrums, it's certainly
the only exercise you'll be getting this year :)
Not Sure
No you haven't. I understand why you're so hysterical over the global
warming scam being exposed to the entire world, but you really need to
do better than this :)
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
> the 'Rapture" is coming and Jesus will take everybody home in our lifetime.
> there is no future.
> so its okay to use all resorces and pollute the planet with no regard for
> the future.
According to my Pastafarian faith, I have been told that of the Earth
gets too hot, my Flying Spaghetti Monster will throw a ginourmous
frozen meatball at the Sun thus cooling us all off!!
RAmen!!!
mr dude
AllYou!
cloud dreamer <Climate.i...@too.fast> mused:
> The consensus is that we ARE changing the climate. There is NO
> DEBATE over the FACT that we are changing the climate.
Actually, there's not much of a debate that the climate is changing.
There's plenty of debate as to how much is being caused by people.
Nunya Bidnits
>> I have just beaten you down to a pulp in this argument,
>
> No you haven't. I understand why you're so hysterical over the global
> warming scam being exposed to the entire world, but you really need to
> do better than this :)
Sure I have. You cut and pasted something you don't understand and probably
didn't even read past the headlines and pictures. I challenged you to
provide something substantial of your own, and this was your answer. I win,
you lose, and it's over.
<plonk>
Husky
<foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems all this oceans rising shit was all made up!!!!
>
> Some fuckers need to go to prison!!!!
>
> The paper also highlighted that it reinforced the conclusions of the
> U.N.'s controversial Fourth Assessment report, which warned of the
> dangerous of man-made climate change.
>
> However, mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied
> statistics have forced the authors to retract their paper -- the first
> official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, notes the
> Guardian. In an officially published retraction of their paper, the
> authors acknowledged these mistakes as factors that compromised the
> results.
>
> "We no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and
> twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the
> results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote authors Mark
> Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark.
>
> mr dude
clouddreamer
Fox News. Yeah, that's a solid source...over something two years old and
since clarified. Get the facts from the scientists themselves about this
so-called "retraction":
And stop with this "oh, we found an error so it's ALL a hoax" bullshit.
You don't have a clue about how the scientific method works. All those
"errors" are from future projections of what and accelerating rate of
0.2c rise in temperature per decade is going to do. That is where the
debate is.
There's no debate that we are causing unnaturally rapid climate change,
compacting thousands of years worth of climate change into decades. What
is under debate is precisely the effects and timeline and some will be
right. Some will be wrong. But for every overestimation, there is
under-estimation. Sure, the Himalayas will take longer to melt, but the
Arctic wasn't expected to ice free in summer until 2050...then
2030...now it's expected before 2020. I can see those effects off the
coast right now. Not even enough ice off Labrador to use the bays as ice
roads...and its looking like not enough ice for the seals to have their
pups.
Not that either of you care. You will nitpick at silly points while
missing the whole picture. The simple fact of the matter is that if we
don't act and even HALF of what the scientists predict come true, this
planet is truly fucked. We lose nothing by preparing now....but we do
gain a lot. Oil is running out - no one disputes that. So, tell
me...when do you want the transportation industry make their conversion
to alternate energy vehicles??????????
Now...when we have some time left....or when the oil industry finally
comes out and admits just how little oil we have left. Do you really
think you want to see the conflicts that will arise from a world
suddenly realizing that oil has a definite lifespan???
That alone is reason enough to act.
But people like you are too blinded by ideology to do the research on
your own. You turn a scientific problem into a political one.
Oh and look...as always, there's not a mention of Al Gore in my post or
in the link. Bout time you fools realize that he's just a messenger and
NOTHING MORE. You target him because he makes an easy target. But why
don't you target the scientists themselves. That link above and the
other one I gave in my last post allows comments so that you can
challenge any point. They encourage it. Go ahead. If you think yourself
so smart, challenge it against the scientists themselves.
I'll watch the comment section. I look forward to your challenge.
<plonk thread>
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
Husky
> Husky wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 6:35 pm, "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu"
> > <foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Seems all this oceans rising shit was all made up!!!!
>
> >> Some fuckers need to go to prison!!!!
>
> >> The paper also highlighted that it reinforced the conclusions of the
> >> U.N.'s controversial Fourth Assessment report, which warned of the
> >> dangerous of man-made climate change.
>
> >> However, mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied
> >> statistics have forced the authors to retract their paper -- the first
> >> official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, notes the
> >> Guardian. In an officially published retraction of their paper, the
> >> authors acknowledged these mistakes as factors that compromised the
> >> results.
>
> >> "We no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and
> >> twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the
> >> results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote authors Mark
> >> Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark.
>
> >> mr dude
>
> Fox News. Yeah, that's a solid source...over something two years old and
> since clarified. Get the facts from the scientists themselves about this
> so-called "retraction":
>
>
> And stop with this "oh, we found an error so it's ALL a hoax" bullshit.
> You don't have a clue about how the scientific method works. All those
> "errors" are from future projections of what and accelerating rate of
> 0.2c rise in temperature per decade is going to do. That is where the
> debate is.
>
> There's no debate that we are causing unnaturally rapid climate change,
> compacting thousands of years worth of climate change into decades. What
> is under debate is precisely the effects and timeline and some will be
> right. Some will be wrong. But for every overestimation, there is
> under-estimation. Sure, the Himalayas will take longer to melt, but the
> Arctic wasn't expected to ice free in summer until 2050...then
> 2030...now it's expected before 2020. I can see those effects off the
> coast right now. Not even enough ice off Labrador to use the bays as ice
> roads...and its looking like not enough ice for the seals to have their
> pups.
>
> Not that either of you care. You will nitpick at silly points while
> missing the whole picture. The simple fact of the matter is that if we
> don't act and even HALF of what the scientists predict come true, this
> planet is truly fucked. We lose nothing by preparing now....but we do
> gain a lot. Oil is running out - no one disputes that. So, tell
> me...when do you want the transportation industry make their conversion
> to alternate energy vehicles??????????
against exploring for alternative energy sources? The best
alternative energy source presently available is Nuclear but the same
"Chicken Little, NIMBY" mentality that supports, GW or is it climate
change has thwarted attempts to make nuclear sources more available.
Personally I wish we weren't totally dependent on fossil fuels, but
not for the reasons you are.
>
> Now...when we have some time left....or when the oil industry finally
> comes out and admits just how little oil we have left. Do you really
> think you want to see the conflicts that will arise from a world
> suddenly realizing that oil has a definite lifespan???
>
> That alone is reason enough to act.
>
> But people like you are too blinded by ideology to do the research on
> your own. You turn a scientific problem into a political one.
messenger.
>
> Oh and look...as always, there's not a mention of Al Gore in my post or
> in the link. Bout time you fools realize that he's just a messenger and
> NOTHING MORE. You target him because he makes an easy target. But why
> don't you target the scientists themselves. That link above and the
> other one I gave in my last post allows comments so that you can
> challenge any point. They encourage it. Go ahead. If you think yourself
> so smart, challenge it against the scientists themselves.
>
> I'll watch the comment section. I look forward to your challenge.
>
> <plonk thread>
>
> ..
>
> --
> We must change the way we live
> Or the climate will do it for us.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Now...when we have some time left....or when the oil industry finally
> comes out and admits just how little oil we have left. Do you really
> think you want to see the conflicts that will arise from a world
> suddenly realizing that oil has a definite lifespan???
> That alone is reason enough to act.
> But people like you are too blinded by ideology to do the research on
> your own. You turn a scientific problem into a political one.
> Oh and look...as always, there's not a mention of Al Gore in my post or
> in the link. Bout time you fools realize that he's just a messenger and
> NOTHING MORE. You target him because he makes an easy target. But why
> don't you target the scientists themselves. That link above and the
> other one I gave in my last post allows comments so that you can
> challenge any point. They encourage it. Go ahead. If you think yourself
> so smart, challenge it against the scientists themselves.
Every time one of them gets exposed for some "irregularity/fraud" you
scurry to come up with a "viable excuse" to defend them,
> I'll watch the comment section. I look forward to your challenge.
> <plonk thread>
Plonked again??
> ..
> --
> We must change the way we live
> Or the climate will do it for us.
You're in total denial. Ask the authors what they meant when they
said. "We no longer have confidence in our projections for the
twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors
retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote
authors Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark."
Are you saying that they didn't make that statement?
While you're at it ask them about the submerged Greek and Roman ruins
and how they got to be under water. Obviously there have been changes
in sea level well before this millenium. Were they due to Man Made
Climate Change?
Husky
> Husky wrote:
> Fox News. Yeah, that's a solid source...over something two years old and
> since clarified. Get the facts from the scientists themselves about this
> so-called "retraction":
Do you have a problem with this source? Check the retraction date
out, while you're at it.
Nature Geoscience 2, 571–575 (2009); published online: 26 July 2009;
retracted online: 21 February 2010.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/full/ngeo780.html
Not Sure
> Husky wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 6:35 pm, "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu"
> > <foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Seems all this oceans rising shit was all made up!!!!
>
> >> Some fuckers need to go to prison!!!!
>
> >> The paper also highlighted that it reinforced the conclusions of the
> >> U.N.'s controversial Fourth Assessment report, which warned of the
> >> dangerous of man-made climate change.
>
> >> However, mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied
> >> statistics have forced the authors to retract their paper -- the first
> >> official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, notes the
> >> Guardian. In an officially published retraction of their paper, the
> >> authors acknowledged these mistakes as factors that compromised the
> >> results.
>
> >> "We no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and
> >> twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the
> >> results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote authors Mark
> >> Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark.
>
> >> mr dude
>
> Fox News. Yeah, that's a solid source...over something two years old and
> since clarified. Get the facts from the scientists themselves about this
> so-called "retraction":
Didn't you already plonk this thread, fatass? It's always amusing when
you lose your shit and throw yet another temper tantrum because you
can't stand publicly losing an argument like this. Please kill
yourself.
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-o...
Husky
clouddreamer
Sounds like Not Sure is the one throwing the tantrum. When that's all
you have left, you lose the argument.
Lack of anything to refute my source noted.
Grow up.
<plonk in rec.arts.tv>
Husky
News. Yeah, that's a solid source...over something two years old and
since clarified. Get the facts from the scientists themselves about
this
so-called "retraction": "
BUT the reality was that the retraction date was Feb of 2010. AND I
gave you another source, which wasn't Fox News along with the full
retraction statement. I asked if you had a problem with that site.
Like the Beatles song said, "No Reply".
>
> Lack of anything to refute my source noted.
Like your name, you're a dreamer. I gave you the link. Stop playing
Ostrich.
>
> Grow up.
You're just being silly. Like any radical, I don't expect you to
change your mind, but if you'd just shut up, it would be greatly
appreciated.
stan
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nice to see someone keeping such an open mind! The 'trolling' OP must
be one of those scientists who interprets numbers differently from the
majority of other scientists. Since even the scientific community seem
to agree that it is an imprecise business. Rather like someone saying
there will not another major earthquake in, say Chile. And then ten
years later saying, "See I was right, and Joe Blow was wrong!".
Weather and climate patterns are much longer term.
Apparently, even for the better informed, it's not possible to tell
whether 'Climate Change' is a short term trend or cycle, long term
trend, or in fact any trend at all in the billions of years of earth's
existence!
One does know that living in one spot for more than the last 50 years
there ARE some differences now in the weather (or maybe that's the
climate?) compared to 50+ years ago. Making Due allowance for better
roads, more snowplowing, better drainage, provision of municipal water
and sewer services etc. Today the poles are taller and the
transmission voltages higher than when children were warned not to go
near the power wires when the snow drifts were 12 to 15 feet! But 50
years is just the blink of an eye. And that's only about five of the
sunspot cycles, responsible for much of the earth's weather, each of
approximately 11 years.
But even over such a short period as one's lifetime it can be
observed, at a local level, there has been some sort of climate change
and it has affected the way we live and operate in this semi northern
location. This year for example, it's now March and insufficient snow
for snowmobile operation! No need for icebreakers to many ports and
harbours around our coast! Insufficient ice in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, it appears, for seals to pup on the ice floes. And what
appear to be higher storm sea levels, increased wharf and other
coastal damage etc.
More personally we bought a new snow-blower this winter; hardly used
it! Fifty years ago before we had the wherewithal and snow-blowers
were extremely uncommon anyway, one would often spend at least 20
minutes morning and evening hand digging out one's vehicle in order to
get to and from work! And in fact one was lucky to have a job that
did not cease during the winter; as was common for some industries.
Wheel chains????? Nowadays someone will not even know what one is
talking about. Not even winter tyres; now it's 'All Seasons'.
So scientist or not; on a personal level one does observe weather
differences. Give me another 100 years; that's still only one tenth of
a millennia, I might be able to venture an informed opinion. So, as
the political canvassers say, "Put him down as 'doubtful'. OK.".
Husky
Your snow blower would have been put to good use anywhere from VA to
ME. Record snow falls in many of those areas.
NE had two winters, back to back with near record snowfalls (within a
few inches) This winter they had less, but temps were near or below
avg.
No doubt there is a thing called climate change, but it does occur
naturally. It occurred before man existed as such and it will
continue after man ceases to exist. Heck continents move inches a
year, yet at some point in time SA and Africa will meet, once again.
Gore championed a ton of seriously flawed data to reach his
"Conclusion". Now his followers say they were just mistakes but their
premise is still correct, Which is silly.
clouddreamer
No. The Fox News report was dated in 2010. My link describes the whole
process and proves it is outdated and since rectified. I notice you
haven't challenged them on it. They're the scientists. They're the ones
you have an issue with. Challenge THEM.
Go ahead. If you think you're smarter than the world's climatology
community, CHALLENGE THEM. I wait to see your comments on realclimate.org.
>> Lack of anything to refute my source noted.
> Like your name, you're a dreamer. I gave you the link. Stop playing
> Ostrich.
I responded. It's obvious you don't have a clue what it all means.
You're just parroting what the ring wing radicals say without bothering
to take the time to learn the facts.
>> Grow up.
> You're just being silly. Like any radical, I don't expect you to
> change your mind, but if you'd just shut up, it would be greatly
> appreciated.
See. Just more insulting, infantile language and no facts. You want me
to shut up because you can't refute a single thing I've said. Not one.
Childish.
Why don't you chew on some facts taken from journalistic sources for
easy reading:
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/blogs/99-of-climatologists-agree-global-warming-is-manmade
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58M5LM20090923
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/06/AR2009040601634.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/23/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange1
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Global_Warming_Puts_Canada_Hunted_Seals_On_Thin_Ice_999.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091026162546.htm
http://www.alertnet.org/db/an_art/52132/2010/00/8-120659-1.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/12/03/shishmaref.alaska.climate.change/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8357537.stm
So, for every edited, even falsified, Fox News report you can come up
with, I can throw back ten that address ten different issues and back
them up with scientific papers that have been peer-reviewed, published
and critiqued by the community.
You've yet to even attempt the same.
You lose.
Actually. We all do. You just don't have the education to see that.
<now go back into the plonk file and stay there>
:\
clouddreamer
>
> Your snow blower would have been put to good use anywhere from VA to
> ME. Record snow falls in many of those areas.
> NE had two winters, back to back with near record snowfalls (within a
> few inches) This winter they had less, but temps were near or below
> avg.
> No doubt there is a thing called climate change, but it does occur
> naturally. It occurred before man existed as such and it will
> continue after man ceases to exist. Heck continents move inches a
> year, yet at some point in time SA and Africa will meet, once again.
> Gore championed a ton of seriously flawed data to reach his
> "Conclusion". Now his followers say they were just mistakes but their
> premise is still correct, Which is silly.
What is silly is that you can't even differentiate between climate and
weather.
Anyone that points to a weather event in a tiny corner of the globe is
automatically in the group labeled "doesn't have the first clue about
climate."
Once you go back to school and learn the difference between climate and
weather (which, BTW, has been 10 degrees above normal in Labrador this
winter and 4 degrees above normal here), you then need to learn that
NATURAL climate change occurs at a certain rate.
Do you honestly think 99% of the world's climatologists would be so
worried if this was natural??? How stupid do you think they are????
The problem is this climate change is happening at an vastly ACCELERATED
RATE. Temperature that takes 2000 years to change naturally has been
happening in a decade. CO2 rise that takes 400 years is happening in
FOUR MONTHS and the rates are increasing.
You see. You don't have a clue.
All you can do is point to some weather...funny...I don't see you
pointing to Labrador...or Australia...which for the last few years has
been experiencing excessive heat waves from Sept to May instead of the
usual Nov to March.
<shaking head> Like talking to a brick wall. Not a friggin clue.
trotsky
> So, for every edited, even falsified, Fox News report you can come up
> with, I can throw back ten that address ten different issues and back
> them up with scientific papers that have been peer-reviewed, published
> and critiqued by the community.
>
> You've yet to even attempt the same.
>
> You lose.
>
> Actually. We all do. You just don't have the education to see that.
>
> <now go back into the plonk file and stay there>
Something just occurred to me. Apparently there is a faction of people
that are either stupid or have perpetually bad attitudes--or both--that
have no other goal in life other than deny some aspect of reality. It's
either global warming, or Obama's birth certificate, or Sarah Palin's
lack of intelligence, or the Holocaust. Most recently it's the
opportunity for Americans to have affordable health care coverage. How
do we get them to shut up?
Matt
sure" it nothing more than a troll. So, treat trolls as they should
be, and ignore them. They'll move along once they realize that no one
gives a shit what they say (and if not sure has half a brain cell,
they should be cluing into that fact by now).
Matt
Husky
> Husky wrote:
>
> > Your snow blower would have been put to good use anywhere from VA to
> > ME. Record snow falls in many of those areas.
> > NE had two winters, back to back with near record snowfalls (within a
> > few inches) This winter they had less, but temps were near or below
> > avg.
> > No doubt there is a thing called climate change, but it does occur
> > naturally. It occurred before man existed as such and it will
> > continue after man ceases to exist. Heck continents move inches a
> > year, yet at some point in time SA and Africa will meet, once again.
> > Gore championed a ton of seriously flawed data to reach his
> > "Conclusion". Now his followers say they were just mistakes but their
> > premise is still correct, Which is silly.
>
> What is silly is that you can't even differentiate between climate and
> weather.
say, it's not about the weather we're experiencing NOW, but the
overall weather patterns over time. Record Snow is a result of GW,
Lack of Snow, is a result of GW Blah blah blah. Gore cried Wolf and
now is getting exposed for the fraud and the energy hog that he is.
>
> Anyone that points to a weather event in a tiny corner of the globe is
> automatically in the group labeled "doesn't have the first clue about
> climate."
a little puppy buy anything these people fling against the wall.
You're a poster child for being Gullible.
>
> Once you go back to school and learn the difference between climate and
> weather (which, BTW, has been 10 degrees above normal in Labrador this
> winter and 4 degrees above normal here), you then need to learn that
> NATURAL climate change occurs at a certain rate.
>
> Do you honestly think 99% of the world's climatologists would be so
> worried if this was natural??? How stupid do you think they are????
99% really. Horse Hockey.
>
> The problem is this climate change is happening at an vastly ACCELERATED
> RATE. Temperature that takes 2000 years to change naturally has been
> happening in a decade. CO2 rise that takes 400 years is happening in
> FOUR MONTHS and the rates are increasing.
Really? Then why have the past 15 yrs shown no significant
warming?
>
> You see. You don't have a clue.
>
> All you can do is point to some weather...funny...I don't see you
> pointing to Labrador...or Australia...which for the last few years has
> been experiencing excessive heat waves from Sept to May instead of the
> usual Nov to March.
>
> <shaking head> Like talking to a brick wall. Not a friggin clue.
You probably do that a lot as real people probably choose to avoid
you.
>
> ..
>
> --
> We must change the way we live
> Or the climate will do it for us.
Princess, you're so heavily invested in this scam, there is no
reaching you. A plethora or "Evidence" for GW has been refuted for
being "bad science " or out right lies. It funny how you ignore
ANYTHING that refutes your position.
AND what are you doing about the Perceived GW. Have you gone Amish,
or do you still live in the lap of comfort provided by the burning of
Fossil fuel. Where do you stand on Nuclear energy. What PRACTICAL
solution do you have to reduce the burning of CO2 producing fuels?
C'mon guppy, lets hear it.
Not Sure
> On 3/4/10 11:19 AM, clouddreamer wrote:
>
> > So, for every edited, even falsified, Fox News report you can come up
> > with, I can throw back ten that address ten different issues and back
> > them up with scientific papers that have been peer-reviewed, published
> > and critiqued by the community.
>
> > You've yet to even attempt the same.
>
> > You lose.
>
> > Actually. We all do. You just don't have the education to see that.
>
> > <now go back into the plonk file and stay there>
>
> Something just occurred to me. Apparently there is a faction of people
> that are either stupid or have perpetually bad attitudes--or both
Looks like the whore is talking about herself without knowing it yet
again. Please up your thorazine, worthless.
--that
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
Most recently it's the
> opportunity for Americans to have affordable health care coverage. How
> do we get them to shut up?
You have a serious crack problem if you think your Messiah's health
care plan is designed to "make it affordable".
The CBO states that premiums will increase a lot under Obama's plan!!
Obama's plan is a political ploy to make "the poor" a permanent Demmy
voting bloc.
Just another "entitlement" (what a fucked up word - people think that
they are "entitled" to things from the government) that will be
unfunded and never go away!
mr dude