Glenn Beck Exposes Global Warming Scam
Devil's Advocate
Werner
wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMJv6L5DvCc
Beck reported it. Someone else exposed it.
There was the Club Of Rome prediction of the early '70s that by this
time we would all be breathing sulfuric acid. Then we don't want to
forget the Global Cooling scare.
There was the Love Canal catastrophe which led to the creations of
still another federal agency.
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Environment.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/CleanEnvironmentMoney.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/PorkNotFish.shtml
Some day enough people will understand that governing is largely about
money - getting it from some and giving it to others.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
krp
"Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote in message
news:uoGdnYh5rM80wJHW...@forethought.net...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMJv6L5DvCc
The interesting FACT is the TOTAL SILENCE on this subject in the rest of
the media.
~^ beancounter ~^
On Nov 25, 1:58 am, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdvoc...@devils.xxx> wrote in message
suds mcduff
the rebuttal as well...
leg@sea
Global Warming With the Lid Off
The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science.
'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they
ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think
I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a
data protection act, which I will hide behind."
So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East
Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading
climate scientists, in a 2005 email to "Mike." Judging by the email
thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State
University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the
more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's
servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most
influential climatologists were published on the Internet.
The "two MMs" are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick,
two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes
used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published
conclusions�a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and
scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and
the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were
authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.
Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them,
scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the
theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the
"common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as
not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep
opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide
the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.
krp
"suds mcduff" <sudsmcd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hejn63$ci1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
What rebuttal? The e-mails are fake? The temperature data is fake?
Lamont Cranston
> suds mcduff wrote:
>> krp wrote:
>>>
>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote in message
>>> news:uoGdnYh5rM80wJHW...@forethought.net...
>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMJv6L5DvCc
>>>
>>>
>>> The interesting FACT is the TOTAL SILENCE on this subject in the
>>> rest of the media.
>>>
>>>
>> ----<yawn> reported in my home town paper two days ago...they
>> published the rebuttal as well...
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html
>
> Global Warming With the Lid Off
> The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate
> science.
Completely rebutted days ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8371597.stm
Harrabin's Notes: E-mail arguments
In his regular column, the BBC's environment analyst, Roger Harrabin,
assesses the arguments sparked by the leaking of information on
climate change.
CLIMATE CHANGE: METHODOLOGY QUESTIONED
Scientists at the Climatic Research Unit [CRU] at the University of
East Anglia are facing a fierce attack from climate sceptics following
the hacking of the university's computer.
The hacker stole thousands of e-mails and data. Much of it has been
posted on the web. And some of the e-mails are causing acute
embarrassment.
My contacts at the CRU tell me the e-mails are being taken out of
context and insist they are part of the normal hurly-burly of
conversations between scientists working on some of the most
complicated questions of our times.
They ask how many of us would feel completely comfortable if our own
inboxes were emptied out for the world to see. How much of what we had
said to close colleagues in industry jargon would be liable to
misinterpretation?
"If the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) can't do
closed e-mail, no-one with any expertise could do anything. I don't
know how you are supposed to work if you don't have e-mail," my source
said.
But the e-mail stash is proving a treasure trove for sceptics who have
challenged every facet of climate science and policy.
Some of the e-mails reveal the frustration and annoyance among
mainstream climate researchers about the probings they face from
critics who relentlessly question their methodology.
And although my contact insists that the e-mails are about how data is
presented and interpreted, sceptics say the e-mailers may have been
discussing how the data could be manipulated.
The CRU has been repeatedly asked to publish the entire data set from
which it compiled an important grid-based record of global
temperatures.
It says it will publish full details when it has clearance from all
the world's meteorological offices whose permission is needed.
But speaking to my source at the CRU, it is also clear that the unit
has been dragged down by what it considers to be nit-picking and
unreasonable demands for data - and that there is personal animus
against their intellectual rivals.
Now this sort of hostility is nothing new in academia - but the
revelations come at a sensitive time as the world's nations gather for
the climate meeting in Copenhagen.
Lamont Cranston
leg@sea
> leg@sea wrote:
>> suds mcduff wrote:
>>> krp wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:uoGdnYh5rM80wJHW...@forethought.net...
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMJv6L5DvCc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The interesting FACT is the TOTAL SILENCE on this subject in the
>>>> rest of the media.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ----<yawn> reported in my home town paper two days ago...they
>>> published the rebuttal as well...
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html
>>
>>
>> Global Warming With the Lid Off
>> The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate
>> science.
>
> Completely rebutted days ago.
>
Nope:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/climate-doomsayers-caught-out-20091126-jsa7.html
Armageddon is not nigh. The planet has been cooling for almost a decade
and the fabled climate computer models never predicted that.
And now damning emails leaked from the climatic research unit at the
University of East Anglia have implicated some famous climate scientists
in a conspiracy to manipulate data and suppress evidence to exaggerate
the case man-made �runaway� global warming is threatening the planet. We
see clearly the rotten heart of the propaganda machine that has driven
the world to the brink of insanity on the eve of the Copenhagen climate
summit. Over 1000 emails and 3000 documents, covering correspondence
between climate scientists for more than a decade, was posted on a
Russian website with a link to the climate sceptic blog Air Vent on
November 17, by someone using the name FOIA (presumably after the
Freedom of Information Act). FOIA wrote: �We feel that climate science
is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
�We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and
documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the
people behind it.�
We knew but never before had seen such proof of bad faith, overwhelming
in its small detail, its shameless dishonesty, its meanness, its
totalitarian tactics, pouncing on every deviation from The Word, as
handed down by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The head of the agenda-setting Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, in an
email to Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes, the American
scientists who created the now discredited �hockey stick� graphs which
claim to show rapidly escalating temperatures is quoted thus:
�I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to
each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961
for Keith's to hide the decline.�
Mann, in another email dated Oct 27, 2009, writes:
�As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, it's about plausibly
deniable accusations.�
Phil Jones writes in another email about his alarm over new freedom of
information laws, as he has been trying to block FOI requests for
monthly global surface temperature data from retired Canadian
statistician Steve McIntyre, the editor of the sceptic blog Climate
Audit. �The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If
they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I
think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone ..."
The fact it was a retired statistician and not a news organisation
pounding the FOI requests which precipitated this flood of information
is a sad reflection on the state of journalism.
There is also a revolting email from Jones to Mann, describing the
premature death from a heart attack of Tasmanian author and climate
sceptic John L. Daly as �cheering news!"
Mann, in another email, maps out a plan to ruin a journal, Climate
Research which has published sceptic papers.
�So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering
Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we
should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no
longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
Another email to Mann, from Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC lead author on
October 12, titled �BBC U-turn on climate,� states: �The fact is that we
can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty
that we can't ... Our observing system is inadequate.�
The good thing is people can now see the tactics of the alarmists and
their army of bovver boys. You can read the emails online and then you
can read the sly attempts to explain away the misdeeds. Despite their
feigned reasonableness and world-weary calm over the email scandal,
climate alarmists are in a mad fumbling panic. They are exposed as
dangerous megalomaniacs, foolish, but with enormous power.
Their power came from the complicity of the media and because it suited
a certain type of politician to build a new bureaucracy and pose as an
environmental saviour, never having to face up to the consequences of
being wrong.
leg@sea
> krp wrote:
>> "suds mcduff" <sudsmcd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hejn63$ci1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> krp wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:uoGdnYh5rM80wJHW...@forethought.net...
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMJv6L5DvCc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The interesting FACT is the TOTAL SILENCE on this subject in the
>>>> rest of the media.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ----<yawn> reported in my home town paper two days ago...they
>>> published the rebuttal as well...
>>
>> What rebuttal? The e-mails are fake? The temperature data is fake?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8371597.stm
>
> Harrabin's Notes:
Lies.
leg@sea
> In article <hekems$du2$4...@news.eternal-september.org>, "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way>
>
>> Armageddon is not nigh. The planet has been cooling for almost a decade
>> and the fabled climate computer models never predicted that.
>
>
Simple:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has
been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to
the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it
would have provided a significant component of the global warming the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over
the past 100 years," he said.
NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its
mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the
primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar
radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.
Devil's Advocate
Devil's Advocate
krp
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@Shadow.com> wrote in message
news:hek0m7$f9j$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>>> The interesting FACT is the TOTAL SILENCE on this subject in the
>>>> rest of the media.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ----<yawn> reported in my home town paper two days ago...they
>>> published the rebuttal as well...
>>
>> What rebuttal? The e-mails are fake? The temperature data is fake?
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8371597.stm
Yeah, funny, at first it was only Glenn beck, now even CNN is reporting
on it. Seems like the lid has come off. It's amusing to see the "troops"
trying to damage control. Everything but answering how the climate data
isn't supporting their hysterical chicken little "the world is ending"
claims.
> Harrabin's Notes: E-mail arguments
> In his regular column, the BBC's environment analyst, Roger Harrabin,
> assesses the arguments sparked by the leaking of information on
> climate change.
> CLIMATE CHANGE: METHODOLOGY QUESTIONED
>
> Scientists at the Climatic Research Unit [CRU] at the University of
> East Anglia are facing a fierce attack from climate sceptics following
> the hacking of the university's computer.
>
> The hacker stole thousands of e-mails and data. Much of it has been
> posted on the web. And some of the e-mails are causing acute
> embarrassment.
Only "embarassment?" Like somebody yelling that the Emperor has NO
clothing, embarsssment? Such an inconvinient truth, eh?
> My contacts at the CRU tell me the e-mails are being taken out of
> context and insist they are part of the normal hurly-burly of
> conversations between scientists working on some of the most
> complicated questions of our times.
Sure it happans all the time. "Burn the evidence guys." People in the
mafia say that all the time when they hear the cops coming.
> They ask how many of us would feel completely comfortable if our own
> inboxes were emptied out for the world to see. How much of what we had
> said to close colleagues in industry jargon would be liable to
> misinterpretation?
> "If the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) can't do
> closed e-mail, no-one with any expertise could do anything. I don't
> know how you are supposed to work if you don't have e-mail," my source
> said.
Well I save my outbox too. I guess that *I* would feel VERY
comfortable. Since I am not doing crimes.
> But the e-mail stash is proving a treasure trove for sceptics who have
> challenged every facet of climate science and policy.
They are proving an eye opener even to TRUE BELIEVERS that they have
been being LIED to. Maybe all life as we know it is NOT ending. Just another
one of Chicken Little's fantasies.
> Some of the e-mails reveal the frustration and annoyance among
> mainstream climate researchers about the probings they face from
> critics who relentlessly question their methodology.
> And although my contact insists that the e-mails are about how data is
> presented and interpreted, sceptics say the e-mailers may have been
> discussing how the data could be manipulated.
Just the notion that anyone who disagrees with their orthodoxy MUST be
silenced by any and all means possible. Shades of book burning. Yeah- those
are guys *I* would trust!!!
THAT is science. NOT!
krp
"leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote in message
news:hekems$du2$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> The interesting FACT is the TOTAL SILENCE on this subject in the
>>>>> rest of the media.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ----<yawn> reported in my home town paper two days ago...they
>>>> published the rebuttal as well...
>>>
>>> What rebuttal? The e-mails are fake? The temperature data is fake?
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8371597.stm
>>
>> Harrabin's Notes:
>
> Lies.
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/climate-doomsayers-caught-out-20091126-jsa7.html
>
> Armageddon is not nigh. The planet has been cooling for almost a decade
> and the fabled climate computer models never predicted that.
The problem with these YAHOOS is they forget about something that is
VASTLY more influential on our climate than if EVERYONE on the planet had a
Hummer with the biggest engine possible. THE SUN! The cycles in the SUN.
Most of these dweebs have NO idea about the SUN's machinations. When their
cell phones won't work they think it is "DEMONS." Not to mention vulcanology
and the shit that even ONE volcano can put in the air. What's the ULTIMATE
TRUTH? How the hell can we know when assholes want to BURN the data? I
think cleaning up the environment is always a pretty good idea. I think
killing whales is stupid. But I also think running around screaming that
"the world is ending" is most likely bullshit. I'm just not given to
believing in fits of hysteria. Sorry! I think that NOBODY "needs" a Hummer
(except the Army). I have NO idea why 90 year old farts here in Florida
MUST drive a stretch Lincoln. Why can't they drive a Ford Focus? Or a
SmartCar? Why are their homes barren of landscaping? Okay they are old and
can't care for a garden, but why not some trees? Put some oxygen back in the
air.
krp
"Once in a China Blue Moon" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-AA935...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> and the fabled climate computer models never predicted that.
>
IT ISN'T!
krp
"Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote in message
Well, now the rest of the media IS paying attention. Even CNN is
reporting on it. MSNBC of course, is DESPERATELY trying to cover the mess up
with rationalizations. They'll NEVER admit that the Emperor is buck naked.
abelard
<Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMJv6L5DvCc
can't be arsed...
meanwhile i've seen beck raving about the 'conspiracy'
while not even grasping basics...
and i like watching most of his programmes, though i do
wish he's do less shouting!
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Black
Ok then...
Why is the weather changing?
And can we do anything about it?
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Devil's Advocate
> In article <hekems$du2$4...@news.eternal-september.org>, "leg@sea"
> <l...@sea.way> wrote:
>
>> Armageddon is not nigh. The planet has been cooling for almost a
>> decade and the fabled climate computer models never predicted that.
>
> Then why is so much the world warming?
>
It's not, it's been cooling for 15 years now.
These are normal cycles.
Devil's Advocate
> krp wrote:
>>
>> "Once in a China Blue Moon" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:chine.bleu-AA935...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In article <hekems$du2$4...@news.eternal-september.org>, "leg@sea"
>>> <l...@sea.way>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Armageddon is not nigh. The planet has been cooling for almost a
>>>> decade and the fabled climate computer models never predicted
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> Then why is so much the world warming?
>>
>> IT ISN'T!
>>
>
> Ok then...
>
> Why is the weather changing?
>
> And can we do anything about it?
Go outside and try to fight weather change. LOL!
Idiot.
krp
"Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote in message
Since it is the cycles of the sun's activity driving most of this, he can
get himself some big buckets of really COLD water and run his fairy ass to
the sun and put it out!
abelard
what exactly 'has been cooling'?
the deep oceans? colorado? the upper atmosphere?
the sun perhaps? reference glaciers?
>These are normal cycles.
krp
> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote in message
> news:QpqdndvqtvZ7GZLW...@forethought.net...
>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote :
>>
>>>>
>>>> "Once in a China Blue Moon" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:chine.bleu-AA935...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> In article <hekems$du2$4...@news.eternal-september.org>, "leg@sea"
>>>>> <l...@sea.way>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Armageddon is not nigh. The planet has been cooling for almost a
>>>>>> decade and the fabled climate computer models never predicted
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why is so much the world warming?
>>>>
suds mcduff
---You'd rather they drive Corvettes?
Why
> can't they drive a Ford Focus? Or a SmartCar?
----We have to protect ourselves from Repub housewives driving hummers
while chatting on the cell...
Why are their homes barren
> of landscaping? Okay they are old and can't care for a garden, but why
> not some trees? Put some oxygen back in the air.
----According to the climate change denial dopes, trees put more
pollution in the air than industry....
suds mcduff
-----<chuckle> GW is science based, religion is not....
suds mcduff
krp
> In article <4b0f9162$0$5102$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Since it is the cycles of the sun's activity driving most of this, he can
>> get himself some big buckets of really COLD water and run his fairy ass
>> to
>> the sun and put it out!
>
> Biological activity had been increasing and decreasing carbon dioxide to
> keep
> world wide temperatures fairly even. Only now when humans have reinjected
> into
> the biosphere carbon that had been sequestered for on to billion years
> that the
> temperatures are being driven outside the evolved balance.
HORSE SHIT! The last ICE AGE happened when lots of humans were around.
abelard
wrote:
yeah mon..
in britain and running 50 gig of coal fired generators...
ray
"krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> The problem with these YAHOOS is they forget about something that is
> VASTLY more influential on our climate than if EVERYONE on the planet had a
> Hummer with the biggest engine possible. THE SUN! The cycles in the SUN.
> Most of these dweebs have NO idea about the SUN's machinations. When their
> cell phones won't work they think it is "DEMONS." Not to mention vulcanology
> and the shit that even ONE volcano can put in the air. What's the ULTIMATE
> TRUTH? How the hell can we know when assholes want to BURN the data? I
> think cleaning up the environment is always a pretty good idea. I think
> killing whales is stupid. But I also think running around screaming that
> "the world is ending" is most likely bullshit. I'm just not given to
> believing in fits of hysteria.
We could probably put an end to all this very soon. All we have to do
is convince Congress to make regulations that all members must disclose
exactly what they are invested in. That way, they are not making
bullshit legislation that benefits their portfolio while at the same
time screwing the American public.
Like Rush Limbaugh always says: follow the money.
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
krp
> In article <4b101fb1$0$4885$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
Nope. Worse. WOOD!
ray
William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> krp wrote:
> >
> > "Once in a China Blue Moon" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:chine.bleu-AA935...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> In article <hekems$du2$4...@news.eternal-september.org>, "leg@sea"
> >> <l...@sea.way>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Armageddon is not nigh. The planet has been cooling for almost a decade
> >>> and the fabled climate computer models never predicted that.
> >>
> >> Then why is so much the world warming?
> >
> > IT ISN'T!
> >
>
> Ok then...
>
> Why is the weather changing?
>
> And can we do anything about it?
Because we are not God, that's why.
In order to truly believe in man made global warming, you must believe
that the entire earth has had a steady climate and temperature until man
created combustion engines. That means if on this day, the average
temperature in Tampa is 73 degrees, then it was 73 degrees one hundred
years ago, and 73 degrees one thousand years ago, and 73 degrees ten
thousand years ago.
Of course, we know that isn't the case. The earth has been under change
since the time God put it here. It's like death; it's unavoidable.
abelard
abelard
can't you hold two concepts in your head at the same time...
try it out...can you walk and chew at the same time
can you understand the difference between 10,000 years
and 100 years?
William Black
I can.
I still want to know why the earth's climate is changing at this huge
rate and if we can do anything about it.
abelard
>I can.
your claim is 'interesting'
>I still want to know why the earth's climate is changing at this huge
>rate and if we can do anything about it.
the consensus is that the majority is green house gases put into
the atmosphere by society
there are several rather 'ambitious' suggestions to control it...
eg a space launched umbrella....there are several others
key term...geoengineering
abelard
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <4b102594$0$4891$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>That's part of the biological carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is synthesised to
>carbohydrates which is oxidised to carbon dioxide and hydrogen hydroxide which
>is synthesised to carbohydrate.
that's a bit mean :-)
i feel sorry for him...
tell him it's carbon neutral
Jamir Quay
BAD science-based:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/climate-doomsayers-caught-out-20091126-jsa7.html
Armageddon is not nigh. The planet has been cooling for almost a decade
and the fabled climate computer models never predicted that.
And now damning emails leaked from the climatic research unit at the
University of East Anglia have implicated some famous climate scientists
in a conspiracy to manipulate data and suppress evidence to exaggerate
the case man-made �runaway� global warming is threatening the planet. We
see clearly the rotten heart of the propaganda machine that has driven
the world to the brink of insanity on the eve of the Copenhagen climate
summit. Over 1000 emails and 3000 documents, covering correspondence
between climate scientists for more than a decade, was posted on a
Russian website with a link to the climate sceptic blog Air Vent on
November 17, by someone using the name FOIA (presumably after the
Freedom of Information Act). FOIA wrote: �We feel that climate science
is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
�We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and
documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the
people behind it.�
We knew but never before had seen such proof of bad faith, overwhelming
in its small detail, its shameless dishonesty, its meanness, its
totalitarian tactics, pouncing on every deviation from The Word, as
handed down by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The head of the agenda-setting Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, in an
email to Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes, the American
scientists who created the now discredited �hockey stick� graphs which
claim to show rapidly escalating temperatures is quoted thus:
�I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to
each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961
for Keith's to hide the decline.�
Mann, in another email dated Oct 27, 2009, writes:
�As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, it's about plausibly
deniable accusations.�
Phil Jones writes in another email about his alarm over new freedom of
information laws, as he has been trying to block FOI requests for
monthly global surface temperature data from retired Canadian
statistician Steve McIntyre, the editor of the sceptic blog Climate
Audit. �The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If
they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I
think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone ..."
The fact it was a retired statistician and not a news organisation
pounding the FOI requests which precipitated this flood of information
is a sad reflection on the state of journalism.
There is also a revolting email from Jones to Mann, describing the
premature death from a heart attack of Tasmanian author and climate
sceptic John L. Daly as �cheering news!"
Mann, in another email, maps out a plan to ruin a journal, Climate
Research which has published sceptic papers.
�So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering
Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we
should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no
longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
Another email to Mann, from Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC lead author on
October 12, titled �BBC U-turn on climate,� states: �The fact is that we
can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty
that we can't ... Our observing system is inadequate.�
The good thing is people can now see the tactics of the alarmists and
their army of bovver boys. You can read the emails online and then you
can read the sly attempts to explain away the misdeeds. Despite their
feigned reasonableness and world-weary calm over the email scandal,
climate alarmists are in a mad fumbling panic. They are exposed as
dangerous megalomaniacs, foolish, but with enormous power.
Their power came from the complicity of the media and because it suited
a certain type of politician to build a new bureaucracy and pose as an
environmental saviour, never having to face up to the consequences of
being wrong.
Jamir Quay
You wouldn't - shut up and leave.
Jamir Quay
> In article <4b0f9162$0$5102$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> get himself some big buckets of really COLD water and run his fairy ass to
>> the sun and put it out!
>
> Biological activity had been increasing and decreasing carbon dioxide to keep
> world wide temperatures fairly even. Only now when humans have reinjected into
> the biosphere carbon that had been sequestered for on to billion years that the
> temperatures are being driven outside the evolved balance.
>
> sapiens will survive?
>
The next ice age?
Because that's what happens when you increase CO2 you know...
Jamir Quay
> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>
>> Once in a China Blue Moon <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>>
>>> In article <hekems$du2$4...@news.eternal-september.org>, "leg@sea"
>>> <l...@sea.way> wrote:
>>>
>>>> decade and the fabled climate computer models never predicted that.
>>>
>
> pack melting, antarctic ice breaking loose,
That is specific to one shelf nearer the equator, stop lying.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html
SATELLITES SHOW OVERALL INCREASES IN ANTARCTIC SEA ICE COVER
While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has
decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around
Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice
over the same period.
abelard
and what is your suggested mechanism for your claim
Jamir Quay
> In article <4b101fb1$0$4885$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
Jamir Quay
> In article <4b102594$0$4891$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> carbohydrates which is oxidised to carbon dioxide and hydrogen hydroxide which
> is synthesised to carbohydrate.
>
enjoy
abelard
sea ice...continental ice...
nasa
sea ice
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22605
continental ice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4QUYyku5EI
you referred to a net overall increase in *sea* ice...
would you care to say what is the overall ice budget in the
antarctic?
would you care to relate the changes in the antarctic and
the arctic to the planetary temperature?
would you care to relate those changes to the appropriate local
circumpolar current, the atlantic conveyor...
and perhaps you'd like to include relevant air circulation systems
then you could tell how you are measuring 'global temperature...
and how and why the local effects at the poles relate to the 'global
temperature'
abelard
despite the forcing effect of your alleged increased water in the
atmosphere?
abelard
>suds mcduff wrote:
>> Devil's Advocate wrote:
>>> suds mcduff <sudsmcd...@gmail.com> wrote :
>>>
>>>> krp wrote:
>>>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uoGdnYh5rM80wJHW...@forethought.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMJv6L5DvCc
>>>>>
>>>>> The interesting FACT is the TOTAL SILENCE on this subject in the
>>>>> rest of the media.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ----<yawn> reported in my home town paper two days ago...they
>>>> published the rebuttal as well...
>>>>
>>>
>>> The rebuttal to any questioning of their religion of GW?
>>>
>>
>> -----<chuckle> GW is science based,
>
>BAD science-based:
>
>
>http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/climate-doomsayers-caught-out-20091126-jsa7.html
>
>Armageddon is not nigh.
wow, i'm so glad to hear that....
btw...what is 'armageddon'...and who said it was 'nigh'
and how nigh is nigh?
> The planet has been cooling for almost a decade
wow....by what definition of 'cooling'?
how have you assembled you 'global temperature'?
>and the fabled climate computer models never predicted that.
which computer models?
what did they predict?
i didn't know there was a complete global climate computer model....
are you running it on your pc?
Jamir Quay
Jamir Quay
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Jamir Quay
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:27:45 -0700, Jamir Quay <s...@00.ter> wrote:
>
>> suds mcduff wrote:
>>> Devil's Advocate wrote:
>>>> suds mcduff <sudsmcd...@gmail.com> wrote :
>>>>
>>>>> krp wrote:
>>>>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:uoGdnYh5rM80wJHW...@forethought.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMJv6L5DvCc
>>>>>> The interesting FACT is the TOTAL SILENCE on this subject in the
>>>>>> rest of the media.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ----<yawn> reported in my home town paper two days ago...they
>>>>> published the rebuttal as well...
>>>>>
>>>> The rebuttal to any questioning of their religion of GW?
>>>>
>>> -----<chuckle> GW is science based,
>> BAD science-based:
>>
>>
>> http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/climate-doomsayers-caught-out-20091126-jsa7.html
>>
>> Armageddon is not nigh.
>
> wow, i'm so glad to hear that....
>
> btw...what is 'armageddon'...and who said it was 'nigh'
>
Why don't you ask the author; I didn't write it, you hypersensitive fop.
Jamir Quay
>
>> Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
>>> In article <QpqdndjqtvZaGZLW...@forethought.net>,
>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Once in a China Blue Moon <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>>>>
>>>>> In article <hekems$du2$4...@news.eternal-september.org>, "leg@sea"
>>>>> <l...@sea.way> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Armageddon is not nigh. The planet has been cooling for almost a
>>>>>> decade and the fabled climate computer models never predicted that.
>>>>> Then why is so much the world warming?
>>>>>
>>>> It's not, it's been cooling for 15 years now.
>>> That would explain retreating glaciers world wide, sea level rise, arctic
>>> ice
>>> pack melting, antarctic ice breaking loose,
>> That is specific to one shelf nearer the equator, stop lying.
>
Speaka the English?
>> SATELLITES SHOW OVERALL INCREASES IN ANTARCTIC SEA ICE COVER
>
> What is the volume?
Significant.
Did you read the rest of the article before you popped off?
Jamir Quay
>
Europe at varying locales has oceanic moderating influences.
Jamir Quay
What happens if ocean currents alone put them in the ice box?
Study Baffin Bay polynas.
krp
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:uj90h5duihkru8435...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> >> Since it is the cycles of the sun's activity driving most of this,
>>>> >> he
>>>> >> can
>>>> >> get himself some big buckets of really COLD water and run his fairy
>>>> >> ass
>>>> >> to
>>>> >> the sun and put it out!
>>>> >
>>>> > Carbon dioxide has dampened out this for hundreds of millions of
>>>> > years.
>>>> > Biological activity had been increasing and decreasing carbon dioxide
>>>> > to
>>>> > keep
>>>> > world wide temperatures fairly even. Only now when humans have
>>>> > reinjected
>>>> > into
>>>> > the biosphere carbon that had been sequestered for on to billion
>>>> > years
>>>> > that the
>>>> > temperatures are being driven outside the evolved balance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HORSE SHIT! The last ICE AGE happened when lots of humans were around.
>>>
>>> And digging up and burning coal, no doubt.
>>
>>Nope. Worse. WOOD!
>
> go back to school....
Really? What does YOUR education tell you man was using for fire 100,000
years ago? NUCLEAR POWER?
krp
>>> >>> Armageddon is not nigh. The planet has been cooling for almost a
>>> >>> decade
>>> >>> and the fabled climate computer models never predicted that.
>>> >>
>>> >> Then why is so much the world warming?
>>> >
>>> > IT ISN'T!
>>> >
>>>
>>> Ok then...
>>>
>>> Why is the weather changing?
>>>
>>> And can we do anything about it?
>>
>>Because we are not God, that's why.
>>
>>In order to truly believe in man made global warming, you must believe
>>that the entire earth has had a steady climate and temperature until man
>>created combustion engines. That means if on this day, the average
>>temperature in Tampa is 73 degrees, then it was 73 degrees one hundred
>>years ago, and 73 degrees one thousand years ago, and 73 degrees ten
>>thousand years ago.
>>
>>Of course, we know that isn't the case. The earth has been under change
>>since the time God put it here. It's like death; it's unavoidable.
>
> can't you hold two concepts in your head at the same time...
>
> try it out...can you walk and chew at the same time
>
> can you understand the difference between 10,000 years
> and 100 years?
What period of time do YOU insist we make the comparison? ONLY the past
100 years? That's ALL of human history, then? So we just ignore all of the
5 to 10 BILLION years of Earth's history then? Just count the period that
suits YOU?
krp
>> >> >> Since it is the cycles of the sun's activity driving most of this,
>> >> >> he
>> >> >> can
>> >> >> get himself some big buckets of really COLD water and run his fairy
>> >> >> ass
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> the sun and put it out!
>> >> >
>> >> > Carbon dioxide has dampened out this for hundreds of millions of
>> >> > years.
>> >> > Biological activity had been increasing and decreasing carbon
>> >> > dioxide
>> >> > to
>> >> > keep
>> >> > world wide temperatures fairly even. Only now when humans have
>> >> > reinjected
>> >> > into
>> >> > the biosphere carbon that had been sequestered for on to billion
>> >> > years
>> >> > that the
>> >> > temperatures are being driven outside the evolved balance.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> HORSE SHIT! The last ICE AGE happened when lots of humans were around.
>> >
>> > And digging up and burning coal, no doubt.
>>
>> Nope. Worse. WOOD!
> That's part of the biological carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is synthesised
> to
> carbohydrates which is oxidised to carbon dioxide and hydrogen hydroxide
> which
> is synthesised to carbohydrate.
Coal isn't? Petroleum isn't part of the same cycle? Burning wood puts
far MORE shit in the air than highly refined petrol.
abelard
your evasion is noted
abelard
>Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
>> In article <hepgdq$oar$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Jamir Quay <s...@00.ter>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
>>>> In article <QpqdndjqtvZaGZLW...@forethought.net>,
>>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Once in a China Blue Moon <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <hekems$du2$4...@news.eternal-september.org>, "leg@sea"
>>>>>> <l...@sea.way> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Armageddon is not nigh. The planet has been cooling for almost a
>>>>>>> decade and the fabled climate computer models never predicted that.
>>>>>> Then why is so much the world warming?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's not, it's been cooling for 15 years now.
>>>> That would explain retreating glaciers world wide, sea level rise, arctic
>>>> ice
>>>> pack melting, antarctic ice breaking loose,
>>> That is specific to one shelf nearer the equator, stop lying.
>>
>> Why has changed at all?
>
>Speaka the English?
>
>
>>> SATELLITES SHOW OVERALL INCREASES IN ANTARCTIC SEA ICE COVER
>>
>> What is the volume?
>
>Significant.
you like that word 'significant' don't you
typical rhetoric when a person runs out of argument
>Did you read the rest of the article before you popped off?
--
abelard
so again, you don't know
abelard
abelard
well, that's a great relief...thank you for that reassurance...
i'll rest much easier thanx to you
--
abelard
wrote:
try again dopey...
wood burning comes under the heading of clean energy
though stripping tree cover isn't wholly positive
wood burning is regarded as carbon neutral....
digging up coal from great depths is not regarded as
carbon neutral...
time scales matter..
you cannot approach this or understand it without
reference to time scales
the crud from wood fires mostly falls to earth rapidly....
a few days...
gas is a different matter
co2 is a long term part of the atmosphere....
it is cycled....billions of tonnes go into the atmosphere each year...
and billions of tons go back via various routes (eg building trees!)
the alleged problem is the amount is now rising rather rapidly
by human activity...it is now higher than it has been for about
500,000+ years and is rising by 1 or 2 parts per million each year
that rate of increase may well itself increase if 'the system' cannot
absorb it fast enough
in fact, the expectation is that while co2 tends to remain in the
atmosphere for about 100 years....it is estimated that it would
take several thousand years to get back to where we were
before the industrial revolution if we stopped burning filthy
fossil fuels(fff) today
co2 isn't the only thing we are pumping into the atmosphere
that is expected to raise temperatures...co2 is only about
60% of our contribution
without global warming there is good reason to imagine we
(europe...n. america) would be moving towards the next ice age
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php#atmospheric_carbon
there's a lot more...this is complicated!
which is why we don't yet have definitive 'answers' despite
the raving of the deniers and the fossil media
ray
"krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >>In order to truly believe in man made global warming, you must believe
> >>that the entire earth has had a steady climate and temperature until man
> >>created combustion engines. That means if on this day, the average
> >>temperature in Tampa is 73 degrees, then it was 73 degrees one hundred
> >>years ago, and 73 degrees one thousand years ago, and 73 degrees ten
> >>thousand years ago.
> >>
> >>Of course, we know that isn't the case. The earth has been under change
> >>since the time God put it here. It's like death; it's unavoidable.
> >
> > can't you hold two concepts in your head at the same time...
> >
> > try it out...can you walk and chew at the same time
> >
> > can you understand the difference between 10,000 years
> > and 100 years?
>
> What period of time do YOU insist we make the comparison? ONLY the past
> 100 years? That's ALL of human history, then? So we just ignore all of the
> 5 to 10 BILLION years of Earth's history then? Just count the period that
> suits YOU?
That's the problem with a lot of people; life only exists from the time
they are born until now. And his response was nothing more than to
disregard the point I was making.
I often imagine a classroom of children in about 100 years from now.
The teacher will explain to the class that in the late 1900's to early
2000's, people actually thought they could change the climate, and the
class will burst out into laughter as we did at that age when our
teacher told us people of yore thought the earth was flat.
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
krp
>>>>> >>> Armageddon is not nigh. The planet has been cooling for almost a
>>>>> >>> decade and the fabled climate computer models never predicted
>>>>> >>> that.
>>>>> >> Then why is so much the world warming?
>>>>> > IT ISN'T!
>>>>> Ok then...
>>>>> Why is the weather changing?
>>>>> And can we do anything about it?
>>>> No, Because we are not God, that's why.
>>>>In order to truly believe in man made global warming, you must believe
>>>>that the entire earth has had a steady climate and temperature until man
>>>>created combustion engines. That means if on this day, the average
>>>>temperature in Tampa is 73 degrees, then it was 73 degrees one hundred
>>>>years ago, and 73 degrees one thousand years ago, and 73 degrees ten
>>>>thousand years ago.
>>>>Of course, we know that isn't the case. The earth has been under change
>>>>since the time God put it here. It's like death; it's unavoidable.
>>> can't you hold two concepts in your head at the same time...
>>> try it out...can you walk and chew at the same time
>>> can you understand the difference between 10,000 years
>>> and 100 years?
>> What period of time do YOU insist we make the comparison? ONLY the
>> past
>>100 years? That's ALL of human history, then? So we just ignore all of
>>the
>>5 to 10 BILLION years of Earth's history then? Just count the period that
>>suits YOU?
> i'm insisting on nothing
Oh really? You bitched that HE couldn't understand the difference
between 100 years and 10,000 years, As IF that was a clincher conclusive of
your position that all life in the universe is about to end unless we stop
using gasoline. You beat the drums of the "settled science" that the Earth
is now an oven, the seas are rising, the poor Polar Bears are dying off,
whales are getting hickies, and we are about to roast in the oven of
GLOBAL WARMING. If that's true WHY do these "scientists" have to HIDE the
data that the average temperatures are actually lower for the past century?
And YOU want to BITCH that we should look at 10,000 years ago. HEY WEENIE!!
There was an ice shelf over most of Europe 10,000 years ago, Did HUMMERS
cause that too? How many European cavemen do YOU think were driving SUV's
10,000 years ago? Lots of cheeseheads in Wisconsin on their Skidoo's?
krp
>>>>Nope. Worse. WOOD!
>>> go back to school....
You are frigging NUTS
.http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-13-woodburning-pollution_x.htm
"Scientists have long known that wood smoke contains carbon monoxide and
cancer-causing chemicals. But research shows that wood smoke's major
ingredient - tiny particles of soot and liquid pollution - worsens heart
disease and triggers asthma attacks."
Wood burning in MODERN steel or cast iton stoves WITH catalytic
converters ARE clean. BUT - dipshit, 10,000 years ago Ugg the caveman did
NOT have a steel stove with a cast iron catalytic converter NEITHER do a
couple BILLION Chinese today and an equal number of Indians who burn wood
and coal.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/1998/106p239-244ando/ando-full.html
http://burningissues.org/pdfs/facts-sheet.pdf
Project Statement: Smoke from residential burning of wood, wood burning
restaurants and
outdoor burning of wood, crops and debris is permeating our neighborhoods.
This burning
results in high ground level concentrations of toxic air pollution.Millions
of people are
becoming ill from these emissions and some are dying. Awareness and
education are the
key elements to the abatement of this source of deadly fine particulate
pollution in our
communities. Please take the time to read these informative fact sheets.
Particulate pollution is the most important contaminant in our air. ...we
know that when
particle levels go up, people die. A number of studies also show changes in
inflammatory
markers in the blood, which are risk factors for heart attack."
Spare me the "STTLED SCIENCE" and political BULLSHIT.
> wood burning is regarded as carbon neutral....
BY YOU! Not by any SERIOUS scientist who knows what wood burning and
outdoor coal burning emits. It is VASTLY different in a modern wood burning
stove with a catalytic converter or on a electrical plant with modern stack
scrubbers. But even THEY are not pollution free. Nuclear poser is AS carbon
neutral as you'll ever get.
krp
"ray" <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:her8c...@news7.newsguy.com...
His problems are many. First of all the globe has cooled in the past 100
years. 10,000 years ago most of Europe and the great lakes in the western
hemisphere were under ICE. There were humans around byt they were NOT
driving hummers!
> I often imagine a classroom of children in about 100 years from now.
> The teacher will explain to the class that in the late 1900's to early
> 2000's, people actually thought they could change the climate, and the
> class will burst out into laughter as we did at that age when our
> teacher told us people of yore thought the earth was flat.
The mixture of politics and science makes as little sense as in trying
to mix religion and science.
abelard
wrote:
as he appears not to grasp that difference what possible
basis is there for discussion?
> As IF that was a clincher conclusive of
>your position that all life in the universe is about to end unless we stop
>using gasoline.
i've said no such thing...that has come from you
> You beat the drums of the "settled science" that the Earth
>is now an oven, the seas are rising, the poor Polar Bears are dying off,
>whales are getting hickies, and we are about to roast in the oven of
i've said none of that either....that again is from you...
although seas are rising
polar bears seem to be thriving
>GLOBAL WARMING. If that's true WHY do these "scientists" have to HIDE the
>data that the average temperatures are actually lower for the past century?
ho hum...relative to what?
a million years? a hundred years? a billion years?
i know of no-one sane hiding anything
>And YOU want to BITCH that we should look at 10,000 years ago
again, i said no such thing...again that is you...
>. HEY WEENIE!!
>There was an ice shelf over most of Europe 10,000 years ago, Did HUMMERS
>cause that too? How many European cavemen do YOU think were driving SUV's
>10,000 years ago? Lots of cheeseheads in Wisconsin on their Skidoo's?
as you seem to have no sense of time why would i take you seriously?
as you keep claiming i've said things which in fact it is you doing
the saying...
again, why should i take you seriously?
Jamir Quay
Jamir Quay
You like to retreat to sematics, don't you?
> typical rhetoric when a person runs out of argument
And so you have.
>
>> Did you read the rest of the article before you popped off?
>
Obviously not.
Jamir Quay
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:46:41 -0700, Jamir Quay <s...@00.ter> wrote:
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:27:45 -0700, Jamir Quay <s...@00.ter> wrote:
>>>
>>>> suds mcduff wrote:
>>>>> Devil's Advocate wrote:
>>>>>> suds mcduff <sudsmcd...@gmail.com> wrote :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> krp wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:uoGdnYh5rM80wJHW...@forethought.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMJv6L5DvCc
>>>>>>>> The interesting FACT is the TOTAL SILENCE on this subject in the
>>>>>>>> rest of the media.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----<yawn> reported in my home town paper two days ago...they
>>>>>>> published the rebuttal as well...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rebuttal to any questioning of their religion of GW?
>>>>>>
>>>>> -----<chuckle> GW is science based,
>>>> BAD science-based:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/climate-doomsayers-caught-out-20091126-jsa7.html
>>>>
>>>> Armageddon is not nigh.
>>> wow, i'm so glad to hear that....
>>>
>>> btw...what is 'armageddon'...and who said it was 'nigh'
>>>
>> Why don't you ask the author; I didn't write it, you hypersensitive fop.
>
> so again, you don't
Don't write them, no.
Jamir Quay
Jamir Quay
Albeit not with the slightest comprehension of the real mechanisms at
work, but that was to be expected...
Jamir Quay
Right...just take a look at erosion and sedimentation rates in the
Amazon basin for a clue there...lol...
What an UNDERSTATEMENT!
abelard
still hiding behind the sofa i see...
cutting and pasting stuff you don't understand and
can't support is not impressive
abelard
you mean i prefer numbers to your hand waving....
you're correct about that...which makes a change
>> typical rhetoric when a person runs out of argument
>
>And so you have.
>
>>
>>> Did you read the rest of the article before you popped off?
>>
>Obviously not.
--
abelard
and now you even try to cut responses...
not only are you an ignoramus...you have now added dishonesty
to your skills
abelard
you have so far shown yourself as a fool and as dishonest...
and yet expect me to waste time on you?
abelard
wrote:
all very true....but nothing to do with global warming
you're very confused and uneducated...
repeat...go back to school
--
abelard
well done....you recognised it
Jamir Quay
Back we go, I'm going to ride you till you drop, cunt:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
Jamir Quay
I mean you're a liar and a fraud.
Jamir Quay
And now you try and hide from reality:
Jamir Quay
You have shown yourself as immune to reality:
Jamir Quay
> you're very confused and uneducated...
>
> repeat...go back to school
Repeat - read and learn: